Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (INDONESIA)

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household: The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Indonesia) Order, 1975 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Prisoners (Letters to Members)

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will amend the appropriate section of the Prison Rules 1964 to ensure that letters written by prisoners to their Member of Parliament are not subject to censorship.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I am urgently examining ways of reducing such censorship. I do not, however, envisage prison governors being left with no powers in this matter, particularly in order to ensure that a prisoner makes full use of the prescribed channels of complaint before approaching a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Cartwright: I am glad to know that the matter is under review, but does my right hon. Friend not accept that this form of censorship is a quite unneces-

sary interference in a relationship between a Member of this House and a constituent? Moreover, in a case with which I am familiar a prisoner was prevented from telling his Member of Parliament of developments which would vitally affect his future in prison. Is not the use of censorship in circumstances such as that quite improper? Does not this raise some doubts about the motives of the prison authorities?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think so. I understand the attitude of my hon. Friend and I am aware of the case to which he has referred. It is my desire to reduce censorship in relation to both communications with Members of Parliament and other communications, where this is reasonably possible. It is important, however, that prisoners should use the established channels of complaint within the prison and, indeed, outside the prison—for example, boards of visitors—before they complain to Members of Parliament about an issue which has not had the opportunity of being investigated on the spot.

Sir George Young: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that Members of Parliament who visit constituents who are, unfortunately, in prison, can have an interview with the prisoner without the governor or deputy governor insisting on being present?

Mr. Jenkins: That depends on the security category of the prisoner. I shall certainly consider what the hon. Member has said in my general review of these issues. It is important that when prisoners have exhausted methods of complaint they must be free to communicate with Members of Parliament. Although we always facilitate visits by Members of Parliament, it is not desirable for them to be treated totally differently from the way in which relations and other individuals who visit prisoners are treated.

Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problem is not merely that of censorship of prisoners' letters but of the prevention of prisoners writing to their Members of Parliament? Is he aware that recently I received a letter from a constituent in prison six months after it had been date-stamped by the prison authorities, and that since then the same prisoner has sent six letters


which have not arrived? By what authority do prison governors prevent prisoners from exercising their right of communicating with their Members of Parliament? They are still electors and citizens.

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, they are electors and citizens. My hon. Friend has communicated with me on this matter. I pointed out to him that the date stamp on a letter is, of course, the date when the writing paper was issued and is not necessarily the date on which the letter was written. If there have been abuses here, I shall investigate them most carefully, because there can be no doubts about the right of a prisoner to write to his Member of Parliament. However, there can also be no doubt that it is desirable that the proper mechanism for the investigation of complaints in the prisons should first be used.

Police (Complaints)

Mr. Bates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to make a statement on his proposals for a new procedure in cases of complaints against the police.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now completed the process of consultation concerning his proposed legislation on police complaints.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The consultations have now been concluded. I am making some changes in the details of my original proposals in the light of the views which have been expressed. I intend to make a further statement before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and for giving us an idea when he will announce his proposals. In formulating those proposals, will he bear in mind that many hon. Members wish to ensure that there is an independent element throughout the complaints procedure and that it is not used merely as a last resort in certain investigations? As this is a matter of some importance, will he ensure that his final proposals are made in the form of a statement to the House and not merely in a Written Answer or in some other way?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes. The principles underlying the scheme I put forward last July were that an independent element, in the form of a statutory commission, should play an effective part in the procedure before a decision is taken on disciplinary action, and in certain cases in the hearing of disciplinary charges. These principles will be maintained. At the same time, I am anxious not to have too heavy or costly a bureaucratic structure. The principles I have outlined will be maintained, and I think that, as I made a statement to Parliament last July, it would be appropriate for me to do so orally on this occasion.

Mr. Whitehead: While appreciating that the 11 months of discussion are at last over, and being grateful for that, may I press my right hon. Friend further on the timetable for legislation to implement these proposals? What possibility is there that this can be done within this parliamentary year and, most particularly, by the time that the counterterrorism proposals are taken off the statute book in November?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that there is any possibility—I am surprised that my hon. Friend should think that there was—that this legislation could be carried through in the course of this parliamentary Session. But I can assure my hon. Friend that it is one of my highest priorities for next Session.

Mr. Jessel: Will the Government try to avoid giving the impression of facilitating or encouraging complaints against the police? Does the Home Secretary accept that Government and Parliament ought to do everything to encourage the police and boost their morale in carrying out their very difficult duties?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, of course, and I endeavour in all possible ways so to encourage the police. But it has now been accepted on both sides of the House, from the time when the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) announced a scheme—a scheme somewhat different from mine—for an independent element, that the position would be that it was desirable that justice should be seen to be done as well as it is, in most cases, I believe, being done at present, and that the position of the police in the legitimate discharge of their duties


would be strengthened rather than weakened by this.

Mr. Crawshaw: My right hon. Friend will be aware that much of the disquiet that arises is caused because of the suspicion of secrecy. Will he say whether the new proposals allow for perhaps one or two independent observers to be in at grassroots investigations? The suspicion is that there is a certain amount of whitewashing before the investigation takes place, and perhaps an independent board of people selected from the local community could restore its confidence. I believe that the police are being maligned when it is unnecessary.

Mr. Jenkins: I think that quite often they are being maligned when it is unnecessary, though I think that occasionally, as with any service, there are matters which need to be brought to light. My hon. Friend, of whose knowledge in these matters and whose support of the police and other public authorities I am well aware, may, on reflection, think that it would be fairly cumbersome to introduce a board of this sort or a committee of citizens right from the beginning. It would be almost impossible to proceed in these circumstances with any effective investigation or any effective application of police discipline. It would be very cumbersome—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I assure my hon. Friends that if we could not have the police investigating any complaint when made against a police officer without having a committee of people brought in from outside right from the beginning, it would be very difficult. But what I wish, and what I have announced, is that the independent element shall play an effective part in the procedure before a decision is taken about disciplinary proceedings. In other words, it will be there from a very early stage.

Fines (Non-Payment)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will initiate discussions with chief constables with a view to creating a code of practice concerning the use of uniformed police officers to arrest citizens for non-payment of small fines.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): No, Sir. The present arrangements are largely deter-

mined by the practical considerations in the area concerned and we know of no cause for general criticism.

Mr. Janner: May I raise a cause for particular criticism? Does my hon. Friend recall the case of a Mr. Lock, in my constituency, to whose home two uniformed police officers came in a general purpose van with a warrant to arrest him for a disputed balance of 50p for a parking fine? Does not my hon. Friend consider this to be a shocking misuse and waste of the time of police officers, and does not he realise the effect of such a visit in a working-class neighbourhood upon neighbours and others?

Mr. Lyon: I can well understand the emotions that went through Mr. Lock's mind. I have written to my hon. and learned Friend about this matter. He will recollect from that letter that there had been three previous visits by plainclothes officials—who did not arrive in any form of police vehicle—before the van arrived.

Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on Adjournment.

Rape

Sir David Renton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will refer to the Criminal Law Revision Committee the recent decision of the House of Lords in the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Morgan and others with regard to the law relating to rape.

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet come to a conclusion on his consideration of the present state of the law on rape; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: As I announced on 17th June, I have decided that the recent House of Lords' judgment in the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Morgan ought to be viewed not solely as a legal issue but in a wider context. Accordingly, I intend to seek, as a matter of urgency, the advice of a small independent group, comprising, at most, five people, representative of both


sexes and of legal, medical and lay opinion, on whether a change in the law is necessary. I am very glad to be able to announce that Mrs. Justice Heilbron has agreed to chair this small advisory group. It remains my intention to ask the Criminal Law Revision Committee to undertake a comprehensive review of the law relating to sexual offences.

Sir D. Renton: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two steps which he proposes to take will be welcomed in view of the anxiety which has been caused by the recent decision of the House of Lords? Will he ask both of the committees of inquiry to consider not only the substance of the law but the burden of proof with regard to this very difficult matter?

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. I would not wish him or the House to think—indeed, it would not be a satisfactory way of proceeding—that we were having two committees proceeding simultaneously to deal with the same problem. This is a small group. I would rather use the phrase "a group of advisers" than the word "committee". The group will consider this matter over a period of a few months and will report to me primarily upon the question of the law following the decision of the House of Lords. But it could be a question whether there are one or two other matters relating to the law of rape which might be taken into account in this quick interim report. The Criminal Law Revision Committee, which is a standing body, will proceed to consider the law of sexual offences generally, in accordance with its normal programme which, while not dilatory, is a little more leisurely than that which I envisage for this group.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his offer of assistance in relation to my Private Member's Bill is warmly appreciated, and his decision to set up an independent inquiry will be widely acclaimed? In particular, his decision to appoint Mrs. Justice Heilbron as chairman will be warmly welcomed. I hope that I am not putting it too strongly if I ask the Home Secretary whether he will now consider, in view of the importance of this matter to

women, appointing women as a majority of the group.

Mr. Jenkins: I am always against becoming committed too firmly to these sexist discriminations, but I have started by appointing a distinguished woman judge as chairman. I have indicated that the committee will be small. I certainly regard it as desirable that women should be well represented on it.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I welcome the Home Secretary's appointment of this committee. Will he impress on it the urgency of this matter and understand that some of us view with a little concern the suggestion that it will be some months before it reports? Is it not possible for it to report on this matter within a matter of weeks rather than months?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that it would be significant—if I may say so, with respect to the hon. Gentleman. I wish to be in a position to make a clear decision about the Government's attitude on this matter by the beginning of next Session. It would not be practicable to legislate in this Session, or, indeed, perhaps, even desirable to rush too much on a question on which there are considerations which need to be taken into account. But what I envisage is that this committee should report to me, by 30th September, perhaps, but certainly by 31st October, and that having also seen the shape which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) would wish his Bill to assume, we would then be in a position to decide whether we could give support to that Bill or whether we should produce a Bill of our own—or whether, if the committee so reported, we might have to take a different view. There is no question of the committee's deliberations causing delay beyond the beginning of next Session.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, whilst we warmly welcome his decision on this matter, we should be even more delighted if there were some hope of extending the grounds of consideration to include the question whether further victims of rape should remain anonymous? That is a matter which prevents a great many women from reporting either attempted rape or rape.

Mr. Jenkins: There are certain considerations on both sides of this argument. There are strong considerations in favour of what my hon. Friend suggests, but there are also strong considerations the other way. I would not wish to prejudge the question whether the committee will be able to consider that aspect as well as the essential question which I wish it to consider expeditiously.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Is the Minister aware that there is great anxiety, some misplaced, and great misunderstanding, some quite remarkable? Is he aware that after the laudable attempt by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) last week to protect the victims of rape by a Bill entitled "Rape (Anonymity of Victims)" I received a letter from an irate constituent protesting at what, in her opinion, was a scandalous attempt by the Conservative Party to legalise rape?

Mr. Jenkins: That is a matter for the hon. and learned Gentleman to deal with, not for me.

Drug Offences

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the operation of the law in regard to drug offences.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: In general, yes, Sir.

Mr. McCrindle: Is the Minister satisfied that the law as it stands has a sufficient deterrent effect upon young people in regard to drug offences, bearing in mind the seeming rise in the incidence of such offences? Will the Minister confirm that the Government do not intend to legislate to take so-called soft drugs out of the ambit of the law?

Mr. Lyon: The Government have no intention of legislating in the way the hon. Gentleman indicates. The maximum penalties available for the misuse of drugs are adequate to deal with any cases.

Mr. Rose: Is my hon. Friend aware that much confusion and much unevenness of sentencing is caused by the failure of the statute law satisfactorily to distinguish between hard drugs of addiction and drugs that are socially unacceptable? Will he consider the premise that the pres-

ent state of the law is far more likely to bring users of the latter comparatively innocuous drugs into contact with pedlers of potential killers, such as heroin?

Mr. Lyon: I know that there is a respectable body of opinion that agrees with my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I do not.

Police (Pay)

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the outcome of the police pay negotiations.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: At a meeting of the Police Council on 4th June agreement was reached on new pay scales for all ranks up to and including chief superintendent. From 1st September 1975 the basic pay of a constable will be £2,400 and that of a long-serving constable £3,402. Chief superintendents in London will receive a maximum of £7,860. The new pay scales reflect substantial improvements at all levels and correct a number of long-standing anomalies in the pay structure. I hope that this settlement will help to maintain the recent welcome improvements in the trend of police manpower figures.

Mr. Beith: I thank the Home Secretary for giving those details to the House and I recognise that this settlement must, like others, be taken in the context of our economic difficulties, but does he realise that there is still unease and dissatisfaction among policemen? Does he know that many police forces, including the Metropolitan force and provincial forces like the Northumbria force, are paying out in overtime large sums of money that would be better spent on ensuring the recruitment and retention of forces up to establishment, with the forces working reasonable hours?

Mr. Jenkins: I note the hon. Gentleman's last point. The average increase is 29.8 per cent., which is as much as it would be easy to justify in present circumstances. It is not possible to say that we are against excessive pay increases except for one particular example that we have before us at the time. The increases vary between 24 per cent. and 41 per cent. They deal with the anomaly of promotion from chief inspector, in which grade overtime is paid, to superintendent,


to which my attention had been drawn. It gives constables a starting salary which, while no doubt on present standards is not munificent, is not derisory, and gives them the opportunity to move up reasonably rapidly. I never claim that any settlement is perfect, and I never expect the police to accept it as such, but in all the circumstances it is not an unreasonable settlement.

Mr. Spriggs: The proposed increase for a constable is nearly £10 a week. Will my right hon. Friend compare that offer with the offer made to the NUR for the lowest-paid railwaymen and advise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the outcome of the comparison?

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. I am dealing with police settlements, and in answering a question about that it would be wrong for me to make general statements about other pay claims which are pending. The police settlement has been negotiated and accepted, and I have given the House as much detail as I can about it.

Information

Mr. Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to introduce a Freedom of Information Bill.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Government are considering, in the light of the Franks Report and other considerations, the law and practice on both the protection and disclosure of official information. I have no firm statement to make at present, but I hope to legislate in the course of the next Session.

Mr. Aitken: Is the Home Secretary aware that the latest episode of the Crossman Diaries saga illustrates how urgently necessary it is for him to introduce legislation to establish the fundamental principle of the public's right to know and to put an end to this long-running Whitehall farce of excessive secrecy? Does the Home Secretary realise that there is something ludicrous in the spectacle of the Government trying to clamp down the door of official secrecy on the book version of the Crossman Diaries—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not raise that issue. It is sub judice.

Mr. Aitken: As the Attorney-General's decisions in this matter have been political, surely it is in order to raise the matter on the Floor of the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker: No. In referring to shutting the door on book publication the hon. Member is clearly referring to a matter which is now before a court of law, and I cannot allow any reference to it in the House.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If we are to have a point of order about this matter it would be better to have it at the end of Question Time.

Mr. Aitken: I shall rephrase my question. In the light of the discrepancy between the Government's attitude to newspaper publication and their attitude to book publication, is it not time that they clarified this matter by introducing a Freedom of Information Bill?

Mr. Jenkins: I had better be careful not to run foul of your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I have expressed previously my view that, while I am unconvinced of the need for a Freedom of Information Act along the American lines, because I do not think that it would be wholly suitable in the British context, I am anxious to promote the liberalisation of the law relating to official secrets generally. I do not wish to touch upon the particular matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised, which is sub judice. The basis of my thinking continues to be that the criminal law should be kept out of this area so far as is possible.

Mr. Heller: May we take it from my right hon. Friend's answer that he is to pursue the policy that he outlined in his Guildhall speech on 10th March, when it made it absolutely clear that Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act should be repealed and that other measures should be brought in, which means that the Government will have to be responsible for proving their attitude in relation to secrecy? Although I do not in any way tread on the dangerous ground which the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) has raised, nevertheless, there is a contradiction in the present situation.

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that there is such a direct contradiction. I can assure my hon. Friend that as far as I am aware, and as far as I can recollect everything that I said at the Guildhall in March, I have not changed my mind in any point of substance since then. I believe it is desirable that we should introduce legislation which goes beyond the proposals of the Franks Report.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Both Front Benches have endlessly promised to do something about information for the public, and both have totally failed. Therefore, would it not be an excellent idea to pursue the course that the Government pursued in the Hare Coursing Bill, namely, to appoint a committee of backbenchers consisting of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer), my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) and myself to produce a Bill which would not be overborne by overpaid top civil servants, but adopted by the Government of the day and made law?

Mr. Jenkins: This gives me a new viewpoint of the provenance of the Hare Coursing Bill of which I was not previously aware.

Blood Samples

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation allowing the collection and storage of data about blood samples of convicted criminals, by forensic science laboratories, along the lines of the storage of finger print information.

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider bringing in legislation giving him powers to grant a month's remission of sentence to any prisoner who was willing to have a blood sample taken at the same time as the recording of his fingerprints.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State, for the Home Department if he intends to amend the rules governing the taking of blood samples from members of the public.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The taking of a blood sample from a person by the police, except under Section 9 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, requires that person's consent; we have no proposals to alter the position. The introduction of arrangements for collecting and retaining information about the blood types of convicted criminals would not at present be justified, but we are keeping in close touch with current research in this field.

Mr. Dalyell: On what basis does Parliament deny the police the benefits of chemical analysis, a matter which would be of profit to them?

Mr. Lyon: Before we can get to the issue of principle we have to ensure that it is scientifically possible to derive some benefit from the information.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend knows that that is possible.

Mr. Lyon: The issue of principle is one on which the House would certainly have divided views. I think that we would have to test public opinion before we proceeded.

Mr. Costain: Is the Minister aware that the similarity between my Question and the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) is due to the fact that we have both been to the police laboratories and were terribly impressed by what we saw? Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the difference between the Conservative approach and the Socialist approach is that I seek to make it worth while for the criminal to give information whilst the Socialists seek to get blood at any price?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a very interesting statement but it is not really a question.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that it is to the criminal's advantage, if he is to go straight, to give a sample of his blood so as to eliminate him from further suspicion? Could not that be made clear to the prisoner when being interviewed?

Mr. Lyon: As I have said, there is clearly a division of opinion on the principles involved in this issue. I did not realise that the division was based on party dogma.

Children (Remands to Prison)

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he is making in reducing the number of children on remand in prison establishments.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: There is no legal provision for the remand of children—persons under the age of 14 years—to prison. We have already made clear our desire to phase out the remand to prison of young people under unruly certificates. We are looking, as a matter of urgency, at the possibility of phasing out the remand of girls aged 14.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that answer is not good enough, and that there are far too many children between the ages of 14 and 16 in prison establishments who have not yet been convicted of any offence, and who in the main have been charged with relatively trivial offences? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will give particular consideration to the situation of 14-year-old girls who should not be in prison establishments? Will my right hon. Friend now give a commitment to phase out certificates of unruliness? What we want is action and not sympathy.

Mr. Jenkins: If I may say so, with respect, I think that my hon. Friend's question is a little confused. The legal definition of a child is someone under the age of 14. A young person is someone aged between 14 and 16. My hon. Friend used the two terms alternately in a slightly contradictory manner. I understand that my hon. Friend's question related to children, but there is no question of children being in prison. A young person may be remanded to a prison establishment only if the court certifies that he is of so unruly a character that he cannot safely be committed to the care of the local authority. Where that applies must depend to a considerable extent on the facilities for safe custody which can be provided by the local authorities. The matter becomes a question of resources, to which, as I have indicated previously, we attach considerable importance. I would like this matter to be dealt with as soon as pos-

sible. I have stated that we are considering with great urgency the possibility of phasing out the remand of girls aged between 14 and 15.

Mr. Burden: When does the right hon. Gentleman think that that phasing out will be completed? Does he not agree that there is a stigma associated with prison for a young person which must bring additional stress upon the parents? When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to see other facilities made available so that young persons are not committed on remand to prison in any case?

Mr. Jenkins: I agree with the thought behind the hon. Gentleman's question as, indeed, I do with the thought behind the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). I do not wish this system to continue any longer than is necessary. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a definite date in either case, but we are looking at the position of 14-year-old girls with the greatest urgency. The general question of secure local authority accommodation for young persons of both sexes is primarily the departmental responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. However, I share responsibility as a member of the Government. So far as resources are possible, we shall endeavour to deal with that matter as soon as we can.

Mr. John Garrett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, invariably, at any one time there are two or three juvenile girls remanded to Holloway Prison from Norfolk because of the inadequacy of secure remand facilities throughout East Anglia? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the proposed remand centre at Peterborough, with six secure places to serve the whole of East Anglia, is far too small and remote from the centres of population in the East of England?

Mr. Jenkins: I take note of what my hon. Friend says and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to what he has said. I do not wish to escape responsibility in any way. Clearly, responsibility in the general sense is shared. However, the actual responsibility for local authority homes must be that of my right hon. Friend and not me.

Mr. Charles Irving: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a disgraceful and scandalous situation that young children are in prison in part because of insufficient resources being made available to social services committees to provide secure accommodation? In view of the present reductions in local authority spending the situation may deteriorate fairly rapidly. Would it not be possible to consider reopening one of the open prisons solely for this purpose?

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that the 1969 Act has never been given a chance to work properly, because of lack of resources. That is a responsibility which, clearly, must to some extent be borne by successive administrations, some of which have operated in periods of relative economic, financial and budgetary ease. It is no good pretending that we face such a position at present. Further, it is no good the Opposition—whether it be the Leader of the Opposition or other Conservative Members—calling for the utmost financial stringency and reductions in public expenditure in general accompanied by demands for increases in particular.

Crossbows

Mr. Albert Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the misuse of crossbows, creating a danger to the public and to animals, if he will seek powers to control the sale of such to young people.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: We have no evidence that the misuse of crossbows by young people is on such a scale as to make restrictive legislation necessary.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the crossbow is a very lethal weapon which operates in silence? Will he give the House an assurance that if the use of this weapon by young people increases he will take appropriate measures?

Mr. Lyon: I am well aware that the crossbow operates in silence. It is illegal if used in an improper way. If used against persons in public, it would be an offence under the Prevention of Crimes Act 1954.

Conspiracy

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he has given to proposals to limit the use of the charge of conspiracy.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have been considering whether any changes are desirable before the completion of the Law Commission's review of the law of conspiracy. I hope to reach a decision fairly soon.

Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the charge of conspiracy has recently been used in a number of political and industrial cases besides that involving the Shrewsbury pickets—as, for example, in the case of the 21 Iranian students who took part in a purely peaceful sit-in at the Iranian Embassy? Does he not agree that it is undesirable to transform comparatively trivial activities into serious offences by the use of the charge of conspiracy? Will he do something to bring this situation to an end before the Law Commission reaches its conclusions?

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that there are certain unsatisfactory features about the law of conspiracy. I am also aware that the Law Commission is looking at the matter, and that before it has reached its conclusions it may be reasonable to deal with certain matters relating to the restriction of penalties, which are very large indeed in relation to substantive offences. I am considering this matter at present. I have no definitive statement to make at the moment. As my hon. Friend is aware, prosecutions in individual cases are not matters for me, and it would be improper for me to comment on them.

Mr. Adley: Will the Home Secretary not pay too much attention to barrack-room noise inside and outside the House on this question, because these matters are of current concern to many people? Is he aware that if changes are made within a short space of time, many people may gain the impression that the Labour Government are susceptible to pressures from certain quarters which find certain decisions not to their taste. Will he take note of the important point that the whole country looks to him to uphold the rule of law?

Mr. Jenkins: I always endeavour to pay due regard to representations and points made from one side of the House or the other.

Mr. Skinner: In view of the continued imprisonment of the Shrewsbury two who were put in prison as a result of conspiracy charges laid against them, does not my right hon. Friend regard himself as somewhat lucky to have escaped the Cabinet reshuffle, in view of the fact that he refused to carry out the decision of a Labour conference, while those in the Cabinet who have carried out Labour conference decisions have been moved to different offices? Will the Home Secretary now redeem himself—not in the eyes of the Opposition, but in the eyes of Those who tramped the streets of Birmingham to put him in his present position—by releasing the Shrewsbury two immediately?

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. That answer applies to the five separate questions which the hon. Gentleman asked me.

Mr. Skinner: There may be more.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt anticipating Question No. 19, which, in view of the time factor, is perhaps a sensible course for him to take. I have made clear throughout that my intention and my duty is impartially to uphold the law.

Mr. Alison: Since this Question has overflowed into the issue of the Shrewsbury two, will the Home Secretary realise that his detached and judicious approach to these two people has the overwhelming support not only of the whole House, but of the country at large—and particularly of the Campaign for Democratic Socialism?

Mr. Jenkins: I think that the Campaign for Democratic Socialism wound itself up some years ago, so I am not sure that reference to that organisation is of great relevance. I have made clear throughout this matter that I do not seek plaudits from any side of the House. In an issue of this kind a Home Secretary's duty is always difficult. I do not find it an easy one to discharge, but I have endeavoured to discharge it in line with

what I believe to be right in the circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Czechoslovakia.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have no plans to do so, Sir, but my right hon. and noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited Czechoslovakia from 1st to 5th April this year.

Mr. Whitehead: In view of the widespread recent reports that the Husak Government in Czechoslovakia is pressing for closer contacts with this country, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would not be wise to draw closer to a Government who at this moment are reopening the persecution of Alexander Dubcek and many others who were associated with the Prague uprising?

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's anxiety about Alexander Dubcek. My hon. Friend has pressed this matter strongly over many years and in meetings with me. We shall do anything we can in the matter.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Recalling the Prime Minister's past visit to Czechoslovakia, does he now agree that if he changes his mind and pays a further visit there it would be appropriate for him to be rather more critical of the colonial regime that exists in Czechoslovakia vis-a-vis the Soviet Union at present, and in particular in relation to Mr. Dubcek?

The Prime Minister: On that occasion I quoted the actions of Her Majesty's then Government who were reopening relations with Czechoslovakia. Everything I said related to the then Government, and not to any other matter. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that should the Leader of the Opposition visit Czechoslovakia or anywhere else and send a message to her staff through the Diplomatic Service, it will not be leaked to the Press, as was done by the Foreign Office in 1973.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATO HEADS OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting in Brussels on 30th May with NATO Heads of Government.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 10th June.

Mr. Watkinson: Was there any discussion at that meeting about mutual and balanced force reductions'? Does he agree that both East and West would be best served by cutting the enormous burden of defence expenditure? Will he say whether there has been a new initiative by the United States to cut the number of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe? In the light of progress at the Geneva security conference, does not this augur well for further talks on MBFR?

The Prime Minister: The question of nuclear weapons is a matter for bilateral discussions, at SALT and elsewhere, between the Soviet Union and the United States. With regard to MBFR, I observed at that conference, as did others, that although considerable progress has been made in recent weeks in preparation for the CSCE and other matters causing anxiety, we were not satisfied with progress on MBFR. There have been improvements, and we are closer together—I put the matter no higher than that, because there is no final agreement—in the balance of CSCE in relation to voluntary notification of troop movements as a confidence-building measure. We at NATO all felt that there had been no corresponding progress on MBFR, which is highly desirable if we are to reduce tension and anxiety.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the Prime Minister say what discussions took place about the Eurogroup and, in particular, about providing it with a secretariat? Is it his view that the European nations within NATO should now play a more concerted and positive role than hitherto?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. There was some discussion of this. We received a report from the meeting of the Defence

Ministers which took place the previous week. All of us who are concerned still feel that the creation of the Eurogroup by my right hon. Friend the chancellor of the Exchequer some years ago was extremely valuable. That group provides additional guidance and inspiration to the work of NATO. All of us felt on this occasion that it was important not only to pursue the vigilance of the defence alliance and to make it more realistic, and if possible less costly, but also that it should be—as it has become in recent years, under successive United Kingdom Governments—an instrument much more for détente that it was in its first 20 years of existence.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST)

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a transcript of his interview on the BBC radio programme "The World this Weekend" on Sunday 11th May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 12th June.

Mr. Lamont: Is the Prime Minister aware that his constant claim that Britain is doing better in the unemployment league looks rather thin after today's worst-ever June unemployment figures? Is not the true situation that Britain's recession is only just beginning and is likely to be longer and deeper than any since the war, and that with this problem as with every other, all that the Prime Minister has succeeded in doing is to postpone it?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says—not had it much relation to that broadcast.
We are now facing the worst world depression since the 1930s. In terms of maintaining production and export volumes we are doing better than almost any other advanced country during this depression. I should have thought that the Conservative Party would feel some satisfaction at that—but obviously not.
Unemployment has risen less in this country than in the other advanced countries, despite the fact that the boom of


the early 1970s petered out 12 months before Labour came to office.

Mr. Ashley: No one has done more than my right hon. Friend to invite cooperation between the trade unions and the Labour Government, but does he not think that the time has now arrived when he should warn all trade unionists—engineers, miners and every one else involved—that they damage themselves, their unions and their country by allowing themselves to be manipulated by Communists who happen to be trade union leaders—Communists who are dedicated to destroying the social contract and social democracy?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I gave warnings on those lines to the TUC Congress last September and, more recently, to a miners' conference less than a fortnight ago, when I referred to what the miners needed to do to safeguard their future.
As for those who are seeking to wreck the social contract for whatever motive, political or otherwise, I say this: the Government have honoured their part of the social contract. I place my faith in the democratic unions and the democratic trade union leaders who are fighting desperately to solve this problem on a basis of consent, to avoid the pressure of a minority of members of the Opposition—I do not refer to the right hon. Lady; I give her credit for this—to return to systems which have proved totally wrecking of the industrial situation in the country.

Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Prime Minister recollect that in his radio interview with Mr. Nick Woolley, he said that he would not hesitate to take further measures if he thought that the situation needed them. Bearing in mind that the value of the pound has fallen to 75p, that unemployment is at the highest figure for June since records were kept, and that manufacturing production is down to where it was in the three-day working week, how much worse does the situation have to become before he takes action?

The Prime Minister: We all saw the right hon. Lady's broadcast last night. I noted that her rating with her own party has fallen to 50 per cent., according to this morning's Gallup Poll. Nevertheless, since that broadcast—she correctly quoted what I said in that broad-

cast of five and a half weeks ago—there has been a debate in the House, and neither the right hon. Lady nor her party has put forward anything further.
I said that we would take whatever action was necessary. The right hon. Lady knows of the discussions we have had with all relevant people and institutions. She will also know that her Government took pride in the protracted negotiations with the CBI and the TUC. They were right to take pride in that. We were given many figures of the number of meetings and the number of hours those meetings lasted. That was their attitude.
I also take pride in the fact that we are trying to obtain a solution by consent. When the Government have proposals to put before the House we shall bring them forward. But we shall continue the negotiations, as her Government did. That is one of the few matters from which she has not dissociated herself.

Mrs. Thatcher: How much worse will the situation have to become before the Prime Minister takes action? Is he just going to let the pound slide further, and unemployment become worse?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady refers to the pound. I hoped that she would pay a tribute to the excellent record which we are achieving. She knows that statements of that kind are encouraging people to campaign against the pound, when we have cut by 75 per cent. the deficit with which her Government left us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the right hon. Lady's words. I shall then answer her question.
The right hon. Lady has a duty to pay a tribute to what this country has done in terms of the balance of payments, instead of trying to sell it short all the time so as to increase her own Gallup Poll rating.
As for the question when action will be taken, the answer is, when our consultations with those concerned are complete. The right hon. Lady defended the protracted negotiations undertaken by her own Prime Minister before he announced any policies.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that the situation has been deteriorating rapidly for a certain time? Does


he agree that this means that there is not indefinite time available for consultations? Will he tell us when he hopes those consultations will be over and he will be able to announce concrete measures to the House?

The Prime Minister: They will continue as long as necessary, so as to obtain a result. It is right that there should be consent. Since the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were elected on a policy of introducing statutory policies, may I say that the Government and the Leader of the Opposition reject them?

Mr. James Lamond: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in that speech he referred to the co-operation he had received from the trade unionists? Does he not think that the best way of ensuring that this co-operation continues is to make certain that the Industry Bill emerges unscathed from its three days on Report, so that the democracy which it will bring to the work place is maintained, and the workers who have invested their lives in their work will have some say in their own future?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. I should like to see tributes paid occasionally to the co-operation of a wide area of both sides of British industry, including the trade unions.
With regard to the Industry Bill, I made it clear that we shall carry out in full what we said in the manifesto and in the White Paper published before the last election. I had to work and press very hard last year to make sure of the White Paper and the Bill, so that the Bill could become law this Session. There is every hope that it will do so. It will fulfil what we pledged to the country in this matter. As for the anxieties of my hon. Friend, I repeat that so far as the legislative aspects are concerned, and I am referring not to the NEB but to disclosure:
Arrangements entered into on a voluntary basis are much more satisfactory than the use of a statute."—[Official Report, 18th February 1975; Vol 886, c. 1246.]
Those words were used by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) on Second Reading and I think that they were very wise words.

I support them, but, as both he and my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for Energy have said, if there are recalcitrant firms which do not carry out the best practice as endorsed by the CBI in its recent document, we reserve the right, if, necessary to use statutory powers, and that is what we propose.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that every answer he has given has sought to indicate that everything in the garden is lovely? Will he therefore say what on earth we are all bothering about at the moment?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is altering what I said. I did not say that everything in the garden was lovely. No Prime Minister—not even the hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—has addressed more trade unions and other industrial organisations than I have. I used the same words to the CBI as to the TUC, pointing out the desperate situation this country has been facing for two years, and the need for full co-operation and restraint. That is not saying that everything in the garden is lovely. Perhaps the hon. Member would care to recon sider his words.
Since we came into office we have taken strong action on all these questions. We are seeking a solution by consent, and one of the reasons why we face such difficulties is that the previous Government finally gave up the search for consent. A considerable proportion of the increase in wage rates over this year was due to the Conservatives' introduction of thresholds, not ours.

Mr. Bidwell: On a less hysterical note, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is quite wrong to over-estimate the Redsunder-the-bed issue, and that there is an enormous fund of good will towards the Socialist ideas of the party that my right hon. Friend leads in relation to Britain's economic difficulties—

Mr. William Hamilton: Not in the Morning Star.

Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a common economic objective between the Government and the TUC is long overdue—an objective which has already been hinted at but on which the time has come for something now to be done.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the enormous fund of good will in British industry towards the Government's policies. I am sure that, after due consideration, my hon. Friend will decide to throw his full weight behind the mobilisation of this fund of good will. My hon. Friend will agree that on the social contract, as endorsed by the TUC and the Labour Party both in Opposition and in Government, we have fulfilled what we undertook to do. I am sure that he will use his considerable influence throughout the trade union movement to back the TUC leadership to make sure, not merely on a majority basis but as widely as possible, that it gives its full support for the honouring of the principles of the social contract.

Mr. Baker: Does the Prime Minister agree that the bleakest aspect of the figures today is that within six weeks 500,000 schoolchildren, along with the 870,000 unemployed, will be looking for jobs? This means that by Christmas, or even next year, many young people will not have a job. What measures does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind to encourage employers to take on young people, perhaps on the lines of what the French Government have introduced?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has touched on an extremely serious point. We have had this problem over a period of years. We had it very badly in 1971. In the cyclical movements—we are in the worst world cycle we have had—we have great difficulty not merely in finding enough jobs for juveniles but in finding enough worthwhile jobs, including those in which they can learn skills. Both on the general employment situation and the juvenile employment situation, the Manpower Services Commission and the other organisations of Government are doing what they can to ensure the fullest take-up of those who are entering the labour market. I agree about the seriousness of the question. This is one reason why it is essential to maintain our present posture by the export-led boom upon which we are seeking to embark. I have already referred to the big increase in exports, which means jobs. When hon. Members jibe, as they did, for example, at the Anglo-Soviet trade agreement, which will bring jobs, they were of course jibing at something which would pro-

vide employment for juveniles as well as for others. We take this matter very seriously and we shall do everything in the power of the Government to solve the problem.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, the business of the House will be as follows:
MONDAY 23RD JUNE—Supply [20th Allotted Day]: Until about seven o'clock, a debate on Postal Ballots for Trade Union Appointments, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, and afterwards on the Preservation of Good Schools, when the appropriate Vote will be before the House.
Motion on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975.
TUESDAY 24TH JUNE—Supply [21st Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions on the Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 1975 and on the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 1975.
WEDNESDAY 25TH JUNE—Second Reading of the Scottish Development Agency (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Diseases of Animals Bill [Lords] and on the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 26TH JUNE—Second Reading of the Welsh Development Agency (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1975 and on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1975.
FRIDAY 27TH JUNE—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Bill.
MONDAY 30TH JUNE—Progress on the Report stage of the Industry Bill.

Mrs. Thatcher: When may we expect the debate on public expenditure and economic affairs to which the Leader of the House referred last week? Shall we have a statement on the railway situation, whatever happens on that issue, some time next week? Thirdly, may we expect a half-day debate on the termination of the Simonstown Agreement?

Mr. Short: On the right hon. Member's first point, all the days for general debates are in the hands of the Opposition. I think they now have seven Supply Days left before the end of July. Perhaps she would consider using one of those for a debate on public expenditure. I will convey the point about the railway situation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and if a statement is necessary we shall see that it is made. I cannot promise any time for a debate on Simonstown, but I shall bear the right hon. Lady's request in mind.

Mr. Stallard: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in his statement to the House last Thursday concerning the position of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse), he gave two reasons for deferring the debate? He said, first, that there were possible prejudicial effects on future proceedings, and, second, that the right hon. Gentleman had been admitted to a psychiatric ward for treatment. Has he since heard or seen statements which appear to deny the second part of his statement? May I therefore ask him whether he will inform the House of the source of his information, and will he now reconsider the question of an early debate?

Mr. Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. The basis of my statement was a cable which the Government received the previous evening from the Acting High Commissioner in Australia. I have the cable here. It states that the Australian Attorney General's Department
has told us that Mr. Stonehouse is in a psychiatric ward at Pentridge Prison, Melbourne.
That evening a number of Press representatives telephoned my office and said that they were informed that this was not the case. I therefore had another cable sent to Australia that evening and

got a reply the next day, again from the Acting High Commissioner. He said:
It"—
that is, the information—
originated from the Deputy Crown Solicitor, Melbourne, who told the Attorney General's Department that Mr. Stonehouse was in a psychiatric ward.
This was confirmed by Dr. Bodna, head of the Victoria Department of Social Welfare. That seems to be fairly clear.

Mr. Mather: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Public Service Vehicles (Arrest of Offenders) Bill [Lords], in view of its urgency, should be given precedence over the Hare Coursing Bill in Standing Committee B?

Mr. Short: I think they are both extremely important.

Mr. Dalyell: Could the Leader of the House confirm that we are to have a White Paper on devolution, and, if so, will it have a financial appendix on the costs of public administration of community councils, of district councils, of regional councils, of an Assembly, of Westminster and of Brussels, falling on the Scottish people?

Mr. Short: I can confirm that there will be a White Paper in the autumn of this year, but I cannot promise that it will contain the kind of appendix for which my hon. Friend is asking.

Mr. Henderson: May I ask the Leader of the House if his attention has been drawn to the statements concerning Iceland and Norway in regard to the extension of fishing limits? Is not the time long overdue for a proper debate in this House on fishing limits? Since the Conservative Party is not prepared to give my hon. Friends and myself a Supply Day, will he ensure that time is made available for such a debate?

Mr. Short: I have seen those statements, and this subject is actively concerning the Government. I have just told the right hon. Lady that almost all the days up to the recess now remaining for general debate are in the hands of the Opposition. There will be a spill-over in the autumn. I hope that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) might consider this subject for one of those Supply Days.

Mr. James Johnson: Would the Leader of the House think again about the need for a debate on fishing limits? The industry is in a shabby state, with deckhands and fish dockers idle and losing jobs because ships are not putting to sea. Is he aware that the Icelanders and others are pushing out their fishing limits? Is he also aware that in this House we have to think hard and do something about the common fisheries policy and changes in relation to it? As the whole industry is in the most enormous difficulties, will he do something about it?

Mr. Short: I have just told the hon. Gentleman that we understand this problem and are very actively concerned with it. I know my hon. Friend's concern, and discussed it with him yesterday. Certainly I will bear in mind what he has said.

Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that surprise has now given place to sorrow at the disappointing replies we get on the question of the public expenditure debate? Repeatedly he has promised one. As recently as last week he said:
I said that certainly there will be an opportunity to debate `economic affairs' but let me now say `public expenditure'."—[Official Report, 12th June. 1975 Vol. 893. c. 668.]
What could be more emphatic and clear than that? I really think that the right hon. Gentleman should live up to his promises. There is, after all, no obligation on the Government to fill up the parliamentary timetable with some of its rubbishy legislation which we would be much better without.
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the allegation, contained in one of the later editions of today's Daily Telegraph, about the
puzzle of Labour M.P.s' questions for Wilson",
as the report is entitled? The suggestion is there made that Questions for the Prime Minister are being pre-empted by those who wish to give the Prime Minister as easy and comfortable a passage as possible. Would he not agree that we have had a very clear illustration today of the reasons for this? Would the right hon. Gentleman look into that report and the circumstances to which it refers, and also remind himself of the report of the

Select Committee on Procedure, which said that the placing of Questions for the convenience of the executive was to be deplored?

Mr. Short: On the first point, there are, of course, the remaining stages of the Finance Bill and the remaining time on that. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Yeovil and his hon. Friends have seven days entirely in their hands between now and the end of July excluding the business I have announced for next week. I should have thought that this was eminently suitable for the purpose.
Concerning the second point, fortunately I do not have to answer for what is published in the Daily Telegraph. As to Questions giving the Prime Minister an easy passage, I am afraid I have not noticed it lately.

Mr. Conlan: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity of reading Early-Day Motions Nos. 532 and 533?

[That this House expresses concern that the facilities available for the unrestricted use of all Members at present available in the Members' Lounge in the Library Corridor may be restricted to the exclusive use of a group of Members who at present have the right to share these facilities with others.]

[That this House declares that Members' Lounge facilities in the Library Corridor must not be restricted, and furthermore believes that more, not less facilities of this kind are required by Members.]

Will he take steps to ensure that before there is any further diminution in the facilities available to hon. Members there will be wider discussion than just within the narrow confines of the Services Committee?

Mr. Short: Yes, I have seen the motions and would be delighted to discuss this with my hon. Friend and his hon. Friends who have signed them. This is a very modest proposal. I do not think we can expect to keep the allocation of accommodation in this House in the same pattern for evermore. It has to reflect the changes brought about by the last General Election. The proposal takes only about 4 ft., speaking from memory, from one room. However, I


am quite prepared to discuss it—it has been approved by the Services Committee—with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Molyneaux: Whilst appreciating the pressures on Government time, could I ask the Leader of the House for an assurance that he will do his best to avoid choosing Fridays for legislation as important as the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, in which hon. Members in all parts of the House have a deep and sincere interest?

Mr. Short: We thought that this day would be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and his Friends, giving them a whole day for this, and separating the two things, as they requested. I realise that it is not entirely convenient and will bear in mind what he said.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling in all parts of the House that we should discuss fairly soon the general level of industrial production and productivity in the country, the figures for which are now very worrying indeed?

Mr. Short: Yes, Sir, this is one of a number of subjects on which it would be desirable to have general debates, but we have reached the stage in the Session where, as I have said twice already, virtually all the days left for general discussion are in the hands of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Would the Leader of the House say when we might have the statement on industrial democracy, promised about four weeks ago, which appeared on the annunciator and was then taken off? Is he aware that hon. Members have for the last four or five weeks been wasting every Wednesday morning sitting in a Committee discussing the Industrial Democracy Bill, which everyone knows will not reach the Floor of this House but which the sponsors quite properly refuse to withdraw pending the Government statement on their intention on the matter of industrial democracy? Would he please arrange for a railway train which will get the Minister of State here in time, so that we can have the promised statement?

Mr. Short: I will certainly ensure that there is a statement on industrial democracy within the next two or three weeks. I do not think that hon. Gentlemen sitting on my hon. Friend's Private Bill are wasting their time. I think the whole House owes a great debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street for ventilating this subject and having it discussed in the way that it has been.

Mr. Rose: Would my right hon. Friend tell the House when we may expect the Second Reading of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, which is much needed for practical, not doctrinaire, reasons, and not least so that we may discuss the HS146 project?

Mr. Short: There is a need to do this as soon as possible, and I will try to ensure that the Second Reading debate takes place at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Godber: Could I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further on the matter of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse)? No one would wish to criticise the Leader of the House in regard to any information he has sought to give the House on the condition of the right hon. Gentleman, but would he not agree that it is surely wrong—as I think both sides of the House have indicated—that a motion of this kind by a Select Committee of this House should remain indefinitely on the Order Paper? Would not he agree that it is damaging to the reputation of the House?

Mr. Short: I made a statement on this last week and, as far as I recollect, the right hon. Gentleman did not raise this point then. I have read his letter in the Press, which he wrote to me, and I have replied to it, but I took the view, advised by the Law Officers, that this would be prejudicial to the right hon. Gentleman's chances of a fair trial. In addition, there is the very large question-mark raised about his mental condition.

Mrs. Hayman: Can my right hon. Friend gave us an assurance that we shall have the long-promised debate on the Finer Committee's Report before the first anniversary of the publication of the report in July of this year? Secondly, will he further address himself to the


possibility of getting the Bill to nationalise the aircraft industry on to the statute book as soon as possible in view of the damage being done to the industry by the delay?

Mr. Short: With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I have answered that in respect of the Second Reading, which I hope to arrange very soon.
On the first part of her question, I sympathise with her. There has been a short debate on this. But I hope to arrange a debate on this very important report in the present Session.

Mr. Awdry: Can the Leader of the House say when we are likely to be able to proceed with the Bill making the wearing of seat belts compulsory?

Mr. Short: I cannot give a date at the moment, but certainly the Government intend to proceed with it.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in recent days decisions have been made in the British steel industry adversely affecting production and manpower levels in that industry and adding to the many problems affecting thousands of men in connection with the closure proposals? In circumstances in which the steel industry is not tendering for steel, in which substantial contracts are involved, and when we are importing steel from Italy, Germany and Japan, is it not now time that we had a debate in this House on the steel industry?

Mr. Short: We had a debate recently which was virtually almost entirely on this subject. But I promised the Leader of the Scottish National Party last week that if there was a general desire for this I would try to find another opportunity for a debate before the recess.

Mr. Madel: May I return to the subject of the Industrial Democracy Bill? The Leader of the House said that we might get a statement in three weeks. If that is the case, there will be another three sittings of the Committee considering that Bill. In that Committee, Ministers keep saying that the Bill is not satisfactory. However, there are no Government amendments to it. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is satisfactory for a group of hon. Members to

be considering a major Bill with the Government sitting on the touch-line saying that they do not like this and that, and yet there are no Government amendments?

Mr. Short: I did not say that there might be a statement. I said that I would ensure that there was a statement in the next two or three weeks. However, this is a Private Member's Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) is entitled to push ahead and try to get it through.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us will leave the House this weekend for parliamentary duties in our constituencies and will not be aware of the travel problems commencing on Monday of next week? Since my right hon. Friend has not made a statement about this, let me declare an interest and assure him that, as a loyal member of the NUR, I shall not cross the picket line. In the event of the strike becoming a fait accompli, will my right hon. Friend assure the Chief Whip and his department that many Government supporters will be unable to get here next Monday?

Mr. Short: As an ex-Chief Whip, I would not dream of commenting on the problems of the two Chief Whips on Monday. In not knowing what travel arrangements will be on Monday, my hon. Friend shares the plight of every member of the community. A meeting is being held this afternoon. We hope that the outcome will be satisfactory. However, if there is a statement to be made, I shall ensure that it is made at the earliest possible opportunity.

Sir David Renton: May I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who asked for time to debate public expenditure? Will the Leader of the House explain how he reaches the conclusion that the Report stage of the Finance Bill would be a suitable substitute for such a debate, bearing in mind that on that Report stage we should almost certainly be out of order in trying to debate public expenditure and that the Report stage will, as I understand it, be confined exclusively to methods of raising new taxation?

Mr. Short: I agree that it is a very limited opportunity. But the more substantial point which I made was that, leaving aside the two Supply Days which I have announced today, the Opposition will still have seven Supply Days before the last week in July.

Mr. William Hamilton: Reverting to the question asked initially by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) about the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse), can my right hon. Friend give us no assurance that this matter might be debated in the House some time within the next few months? If not, in view of the imminence of the publication of the Report of the Boyle Committee on Members' salaries, can my right hon. Friend say whether that same right hon. Member now resident somewhere in Melbourne will be entitled to such increases as the Boyle Committee recommends and the Government accept?

Mr. Short: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, certainly this situation changes very rapidly—almost from day to day. I keep it constantly under review. If I have anything that I should like to say to the House, I shall come to the House and say it.
On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received the Boyle Report. The Government have not yet been able to consider it. But certainly, as matters stand, my right hon. Friend in Melbourne would be able to claim the increase if any increase were given. That is the position at present.

Mr. Cormack: Reverting to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman), may I press the Leader of the House to give a date for the debate on the Finer Report? He has many times in the past said that he would bring it before the House. It is now almost a year since the publication of the report. It is scandalous that it has not yet been debated.

Mr. Short: I would not call it "scandalous". I know that the hon. Gentleman is extremely concerned and has asked me on many occasions about this. There has been one short debate, and two parts of the report have been implemented by the Government. But I repeat

what I said just now. I shall try to find an opportunity in the present Session for a debate.

Mr. Greville Janner: Can my right hon. Friend spare the time for a brief debate on the conditions of the police in the Palace of Westminster, or is he satisfied by his welcome visit, which was much appreciated, to the police mess that urgent steps need to be taken and will be taken to put those conditions right?

Mr. Short: I visited the police mess this week. I have to say to my hon. and learned Friend that I regard it as far from satisfactory. Certainly I shall have urgent consultations with the House authorities about it to see what we can do to improve conditions for the police, who serve us so well in this House.

Mr. Tugendhat: May I ask the Lord President to reconsider his answer to the question about Simonstown? Whatever his views may be, the Government have taken a most important decision with implications for our defence and foreign policy. As a matter of principle, the Government ought to be prepared to debate these matters rather than announceing them in a hole-and-corner fashion by means of an answer to a Written Question.

Mr. Short: I do not agree that it was done in a hole-and-corner fashion. There was a statement in the House—

Mr. Tugendhat: It was a Private Notice Question.

Mr. Short: And a statement. A great many supplementary questions were asked and answered. But I am afraid that there is not time before the Recess, unless the hon. Gentleman is prepared to sit into August, to debate all these matters. I realise that he has a point, however, and I shall bear it in mind.

Mr. Strauss: Following the questions which have been asked about the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) and in view of the confusion which there seems to be about the matter, does my right hon. Friend agree that the grounds on which the Select Committee advocated that the right hon. Gentleman should be expelled from this House were constitutional and parliamentary and had nothing to do with the charges being made against him? In any


debate on the Report of the Select Committee, any reference to those criminal charges would be completely out of order.

Mr. Short: That is true. That is what the Select Committee reported. But, as I said earlier, I took the best legal advice that I could get on this. I was assured by all those whom I consulted that it would be virtually impossible for this House to expel the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) without that having some bearing on any subsequent trial which might follow in this country. It was felt that this would prejudice the right hon. Gentleman's chances of a fair trial. I hope that in this country we still do not regard anyone as guilty until he has been found guilty.

Mr. Moate: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further about the compulsory wearing of seat belts? Is not it grossly unsatisfactory that week after week he gives the same casual and offhand answers about this legislation? It is now seven months since the Second Reading debate commenced. During that period, the right hon. Gentleman has found time for debates about the coursing of hares. Can he assure the House that he intends to provide adequate time in this Session to get the measure on the statute book this year?

Mr. Short: I have said that we certainly intend to proceed with this Bill, and we shall do so at the earliest possible opportunity. I am very sorry that it has not been possible to find time before now.

Mr. English: The Government are pondering the Boyle Report in secret. Since this is a free country, could not they publish it so that we can all discuss whether or not to implement it?

Mr. Short: Of course the Government will publish the report eventually, but when that is done is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As the hon. Gentleman knows, all top salary review board reports go direct to the Prime Minister.

Sir M. Havers: Going back to the question of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse), the

question of prejudice increases day by day. I do not personally accept that there would be risk of prejudice in a debate in which one knows Mr. Speaker would not allow discussion to range beyond the matters on which the Select Committee reported, but does the Leader of the House realise that in these circumstances it could be as long as two years before the House would be able to debate this if the matter were left?

Mr. Short: If things took their normal course, if "normal" is the right word, that would certainly be so, but this case is so abnormal and the situation changes so rapidly that one does not know what to expect from one day to another. I will keep the House informed of any changes. On the point that was put to me, the advice of the Government's legal advisers was that the fact of expulsion itself probably would prejudice the mind of anybody who could be involved in a trial later this year. That is the point, not the fact that any debate might wander into the criminality or otherwise of the right hon. Gentleman concerned. It is expulsion which possibly could prejudice his chance of a fair trial.

Mr. Cryer: Would my right hon. Friend recall that it is now four or five weeks since the Prime Minister came to the House at the request of many Northern Members and made a statement about textiles, a statement which to many of us was singularly vague? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to clarify that statement and say what he meant by it and whether there is to be stockpiling and import control—because meanwhile, week by week, the West Riding textile industry and the Lancashire cotton textile industry are bleeding to death?

Mr. Short: I agree about the urgency of the matter, and I explained last week that I would press my right hon. Friend for a quick resolution of the problem. The Prime Minister has announced that the Government are giving further attention to this, but considerable discussions have to take place on the exact method. Certainly, I will see that the House is informed on this as soon as possible.

Mr. Michael Latham: Would it not be for the convenience of the House and also of the country if either the Prime


Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to make a statement next week about the Government's intentions over inflation?

Mr. Short: I have been sitting here listening to the Prime Minister being questioned throughout his Question period this afternoon on that very subject.

Mr. Noble: Would my right hon. Friend accept an endorsement of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), and would he take note of Early-Day Motion No. 523, now signed by 59 hon. Members, on the textile and footwear industries?

[That this House, concerned with the serious crisis facing the UK textile and footwear industries which has led to widespread redundancies and short-time working, urges Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to stimulate demand for UK textile and footwear goods by zero-rating for VAT purposes all UK produced knitted goods, clothing, all household textiles and all UK produced footwear.]

Will he recall that the Prime Minister on 23 rd May accepted that the situation was urgent and said he would probably issue a statement before the end of that recess? Would he accept that there has been no statement and no action, and that this is causing greater concern now than there was before that statement by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Short: This is taking some time but I have replied saying that I will ensure that the House is informed as quickly as possible on how the Government scheme is to be put into operation.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is the Leader of the House aware that some hon. Members would regard as unsatisfactory a debate on the case of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) if their comments were limited to the factors which figure in the Report of the Select Committee and they were not free to refer to other matters which, directly or indirectly, might bear upon the criminal charges being made?

Mr. Short: What the hon. and learned Gentleman has said illustrates the difficulty in this matter. There are two points of view on this, and I took the best advice I could get on it.

CROSSMAN MEMOIRS

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a definite and—in view of your remarks earlier—delicate but urgent matter of public importance which should gain precedence over the Orders of the Day. It is a matter which offends against common sense and natural justice. It is a matter which, unless it is debated in the House, could bring one of the high Officers of this House into disrepute. It is a matter where a large and powerful newspaper is privileged, and where, therefore—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is really referring to the action of the Attorney-General with regard to the Crossman Memoirs.

Mr. Fraser: Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is now clear to the whole House that that is precisely to what I am referring.

Mr. Speaker: In that case I will not allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed, because I rule that that is sub judice. A writ has been issued for an injunction in this case. If the right hon. Gentleman tries to refer to that case I must tell him now I will not allow it to be further discussed in the House today.

Mr. Fraser: Further to that point, Mr. Speaker, the writ is not to be before the Queen's Bench until 24th June. Surely, it is proper that the House should now—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very sorry. I am bound in this matter by the attitude taken by the House to the Report of the Select Committee. There is also the discretion vested in me by the Standing Orders. In my view, this matter clearly is one which is sub judice and it would be quite wrong for the House to discuss it.

Mr. Heifer: Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance in relation to the question of publication not of the book but of those parts of it which have already been published in the Sunday Times, which are common knowledge, and which are available for hon. Members to read? Is it not possible then, for us to debate those aspects of the already published material? It seems to me strange that we are not able to discuss these matters because of


an injunction which is intended to try to stop publication when, in fact, part has already been published. It is a most strange situation.

Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry. I would wish to help the House if I could and I have a certain discretion vested in me. But this is a case in which a writ has been issued for an injunction and the matter is to be heard on Tuesday 24th June. In my view, it would be quite improper for the House to discuss that case until it has been heard. Of course, the House can discuss it in general or in particular after the case has been heard, but I must rule firmly on this today.

Mr. Aitken: Mr. Speaker, does your ruling really mean that the Attorney-General can effectively gag and silence Parliament by the exercise of political action dressed up as a judicial decision?

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Tammany Hall!

Mr. Speaker: Order. That observation is quite improper.
What has happened is that the Attorney-General, exercising the powers vested in him, has taken certain action. That involves a case coming before the courts. Until the case is tried and a

decision is reached by the court it would be quite improper, in my view, for the House to discuss it, because the discussion would be related to that particular case.
On previous occasions I have ruled perhaps more widely than my predecessors on the sub judice rule where matters of general interest have been discussed. But in this particular case, on this particular point, I have ruled, that the matter is sub judice.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 7TH JULY

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. James Kilfedder
Mr. James Wellbeloved
Mrs. Audrey Wise

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Ordered,
That the draft Administration of Estates (Small Payments) (Increase of Limit) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) (No. 3) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.12 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The main aim of this Bill is to help ensure that the fugitive terrorist in Ireland can be brought to justice. In the Republic a complementary Bill—The Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill—was introduced in the Seanad on 10th April, has passed its Second Reading and is now in Committee.
These Bills are required because the existing arrangements for the return of fugitives from the Republic to Northern Ireland under the Backing of Warrants Act 1965 do not work for terrorist crimes. It is a regrettable fact that the perpetrator of a terrorist crime in Northern Ireland can readily escape over the border and plead that his offence was political. He has every prospect of successfully securing his release in this way, particularly if he is connected with the IRA.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want in any way to misrepresent the position, but this does work the other way round. Offenders in the North have been extradited to the South of Ireland.

Mr. Rees: I shall be coming to the extradition factor which is a basic reason for this Bill. I was saying that these Bills are required in view of the existing arrangements under the Backing of Warrants Act 1965, which do not provide for terrorist crimes. It is a regrettable fact that a perpetrator of a terrorist crime in Northern Ireland can readily escape over the border.
Both Bills were prepared in consultation with the Republic and flow from the discussions held at Sunningdale in December 1973. In the joint communiqué issued after that conference Her Majesty's Government and the Republic agreed that persons committing crimes of violence, however motivated, in any part of Ireland should be brought to trial irrespective of the part of Ireland in which they are located. A joint Law Enforcement

Commission was appointed to study how this could be done. The United Kingdom representatives included the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and Lord Justice Scarman. The Republic's representatives included two judges of the Supreme Court.
Their report was issued in May last year and I explained to the House at the time that all the members of the Commission agreed that it would be feasible to confer power on the courts in both parts of Ireland so that the courts in each part would be able to try certain crimes wherever in Ireland they were committed. Both Governments agreed that this recommendation offered a solution to the problem and it is embodied in the two Bills.
It is important to realise how each Bill complements the other and that each Bill forms half of a package. There are three essential elements in each Bill and I will spell them out. The Irish Bill enables a fugitive offender in the Republic to be tried there for an offence committed in Northern Ireland. Second, it establishes a procedure whereby the court of trial can obtain from Northern Ireland evidence from witnesses who are too frightened—and I do not say that in any derogatory sense as anyone who lives in Northern Ireland will realise—to travel to the Republic to give evidence. Third, provision is made for evidence to be taken in the Republic for an equivalent trial in Northern Ireland.
Likewise, our Bill contains the three complementary provisions. It enables an offender to be tried in Northern Ireland for an offence committed in the Republic, for a request to be sent to the Republic for evidence for that trial and for the taking of evidence in Northern Ireland to support the prosecution of an offender being tried in the Republic. In the context of the Northern Ireland problem therefore it is the Republic's Bill which is supremely important to us, but one Bill is of no use without the other.
I must now indicate the background to the problem of the fugitive political offender in more detail. There is no formal extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and the Republic. The return of offenders is normally effected by a simple form of extradition under the Backing of Warrants Act 1965 whereby


the police of one country execute a warrant issued in the other and the accused is brought before a court which decides whether to surrender him to the country making the request. Before taking this decision, the court must be satisfied that the offence corresponds to an offence in its own country and that it is not a political offence.
In the Republic, though not in the United Kingdom, the accused may not be surrendered if his offence is one connected with a political offence. This is an important difference between our law and that of the Republic. It arises from the provisions of the European Convention on Extradition which specified that extradition shall not be granted for a political offence or for offences connected with a political offence. The Republic of Ireland is a party to this convention but the United Kingdom is not because, amongst other things, we prefer bi-lateral arrangements. Hence the avenues of appeal open to a fugitive are somewhat wider in the Republic than in the United Kingdom.
Even if we were a party to the convention or if there were a treaty between ourselves and the Republic the problem of the fugitive political offender would remain because there would still be obligations not to surrender someone whose offence was regarded as political. It is this aspect that, as a non-lawyer, I can see is the key to an understanding of the matter.
Since the troubles started in Northern Ireland no person accused of a terrorist offence in Northern Ireland has been returned from the Republic to face trial. Twelve persons wanted for "terrorist" offences committed in Northern Ireland have now been set free by courts in the Republic on the grounds that their offences were political or connected with a political offence. A further seven are contesting their return to Northern Ireland before the courts. Some of those concerned have been accused of murder or attempted murder. There have been instances where a fugitive has returned to Northern Ireland to resume his activities.
It is an affront to all decently minded people that terrorists have escaped justice and that others like them may be encouraged to seek refuge in the Republic in the hope that they, too, will escape. Members of the Government in the Republic have forthrightly condemned this situation and the backing of warrants system still works in non-political cases. But judges in the Republic have made it clear that whatever view they might hold in regard to the inhumanity of the alleged crimes—crimes which are recited in some parts of Northern Ireland and are known to ordinary people—they are obliged to follow the law as it stands.
That is the outline of the problem about which much concern has rightly been shown by this House. The solution, to which I have already referred, and with which all members of the joint Law Enforcement Commission agreed, is what may be termed the "extra-territorial" method provided for in the Bill—that is, conferring on the domestic courts of each country jurisdiction to try certain offences committed in the other. There are several precedents for taking extra-territorial jurisdiction, for example the Foyle Fisheries Act 1952 and the Hijacking Act 1971.
Under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 a United Kingdom citizen can be tried here for the offence of murder committed outside the United Kingdom. In this the Republic has reciprocal arrangements for Irish citizens. The Commission was satisfied that there were no legal objections to the validity of the extra-territorial method and agreed a framework within which the scheme could work. The basis of it is a range of serious offences to which the scheme will apply. These are contained in Schedule 1 to the Bill and are all serious offences where political motivation might be pleaded in defence ranging from murder and manslaughter to the common law offences of arson, kidnapping and false imprisonment.
The Commission stipulated some important principles which have been incorporated in the Bill, namely, that the accused must clearly be a fugitive, that he must be accused in one jurisdiction of a "scheduled" offence committed in the other jurisdiction; that he should be able to return to his own jurisdiction for trial if he so decides; that, the decision


whether to institute proceedings shall rest with the Attorney-General in each jurisdiction; and, most important, that witnesses should not be compelled to cross the border.
The problem of witnesses exercised the members of the Commission a great deal. There was concern that witnesses might refuse to come forward out of the fear that they might be compelled to cross the border to give evidence, and without the relevant evidence the extra-territorial method would fail.
The members of the Commission were agreed that witnesses for both prosecution and defence should be given every encouragement to cross the border to the place of trial. Special arrangements for travel and accommodation can be made and both Governments will take full security measures to protect witnesses who do travel to the place of trial, but, for witnesses who are not prepared to travel, this Bill lays down a special procedure for taking evidence on commission which is described in Clause 5 and Schedule 4 of the Bill.
The Irish Bill contains analogous provisions. A request for evidence can be sent by a court to the Republic and likewise a request from a court in the Republic dealt with in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland evidence will be taken on oath by a High Court judge designated by the Lord Chief Justice. A judge can rule that the name and address of the witness shall not be made public. The trial judge or judges may have questions to put to the witness, and counsel for the prosecution and defence, and the accused, if he wishes, will be present at the hearing and can cross-examine the witness.
I mentioned the range of serious offences to which the Bill will apply. These are "extra-territorial" offences and are defined in Clause 1 which provides that any act or omission taking place in the Republic of Ireland which, if committed in Northern Ireland would be an offence under Schedule 1, shall constitute an offence in Northern Ireland regardless of the nationality of the offender.

Sir Peter Rawlinson: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the accused might be present

when evidence is taken on commission. Does that mean that the accused will be brought within a particular jurisdiction, for example, to Northern Ireland, and be present when evidence is given there? If that is so, what is to stop somebody under the present law from seizing that person, demanding that he should be taken into custody and tried there and then for the offence which he has committed in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rees: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will deal with any of the legal aspects later. However, the circumstances that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just put forward would presumably mean that an order would have to be given by the police in the North to seize the said person. That is not likely, given the nature of the legislation. If there is any other aspect of seizure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind, perhaps it could be dealt with later.
Extra-territorial offences are those listed in Schedule 1 together with the offences in Clauses 2 and 3 and the inchoate offences as defined in Clause 6. The offences created by Clauses 2 and 3 are new. Clause 2 deals with the hi-jacking and the use of vehicles to plant bombs by proxy—a development that in the course of last year grew more and more prevalent. Clause 3 makes it an offence to escape in the Republic when in legal custody in connection with an extraterritorial offence. Extra-territorial offences in the Republic of Ireland are basically analogous to those in Northern Ireland.
Clause 4 and Schedule 2 amend the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act to enable trials of extra-territorial offences to be heard without a jury and to restrict the granting of bail and the place of trial. These provisions are made permanent but only, I repeat only, for the trial of extra-territorial offences. This has been done because, just as it would not be right to expect witnesses to cross the border, so jurors could not be expected to cross the border either in order to attend the hearing of evidence on commission.
Practical problems, not least those of providing adequate transport and security arrangements, make it impossible to contemplate bringing a complete jury from


the place of trial to the other jurisdiction. There are provisions already for trial without jury in both jurisdictions in Ireland. In the Republic extra-territorial offences will be tried in the Special Criminal Court before three judges without a jury. In Northern Ireland a judge alone will try extra-territorial offences as he now does scheduled offences under the Emergency Provisions Act.
The arrangements required for the scheme of extra-territorial jurisdiction are completed by Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill. They relate to evidence and provide for the offence of perjury for making false statements. Clause 11 carries out the recommendation that prosecutions may be made only with the consent of the Attorney-General. Clause 14 provides for the commencement of the Bill, which apart from Clause 12, to which I shall refer in a moment, will come into force on such date or dates as I may appoint by order made by statutory instrument.

Mr. McCusker: Mr. McCusker (Armagh) rose—

Mr. Rees: I shall deal with one additional point and then give way.
It will be possible to specify different dates for different provisions. This will enable the operation of the Bill to be related to the date of operation of the corresponding Irish Bill and, for example, will enable Clause 7—which, as the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) knows, is of a different nature—to be brought into operation separately from the remainder of the Bill, if desired.

Mr. McCusker: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what effect the Bill, or the reciprocal Bill in the South of Ireland, is likely to have on those terrorists who are already fugitives in the Republic, and who have admitted their guilt by swearing before courts in the Republic that they committted their offences in pursuit of the Irish Republican Army ideals?

Mr. Rees: I was about to come to retrospection. The hon. Member for Armagh has put the point fairly. Retrospection is not a feature of the law, but, in as much as offences were committed, I know from 16 months more or less living in Northern Ireland, that they cannot be dealt with by the law. No

new legislation can deal with something from the past.

Mr. John Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with what I shall call the equivalent of Schedule 4 in the Irish legislation on the question of the compellability of witnesses who have been taken, as it were, outside the jurisdiction? Under Schedule 4, there is power to compel witnesses, who have been examined extra-territorially, to give their evidence as well as power to protect them. However, what will be the position in regard to sanctions against, say, witnesses in the Republic of Ireland who are reluctant to give evidence about matters that have arisen out of offences in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rees: I am not sure that I have clearly understood my hon. Friend's point. Certainly, we cannot compel people to cross the border.

Mr. Lee: I appreciate that.

Mr. Rees: In terms of giving evidence the position would be the same—North or South. If people are prepared to give evidence and to act as witnesses, the procedures laid down in the Bill will be followed. If I have not understood my hon. Friend's point, I invite him to clarify the position.

Mr. Lee: I understand it to be the case—and my right hon. Friend will be able to confirm this—that the sanctions for compelling a witness to give evidence in Southern Ireland will be the same as those that apply in Northern Ireland. Is that right?

Mr. Rees: I can only tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has made the point to me that it is the intention that the Acts in both places shall be twins. Perhaps that is a good analogy. I hope that it makes the point clear.
I now turn to those aspects of the Bill which go beyond the recommendations put forward by the Law Enforcement Commission, particularly to Clause 7 of the Bill which amends the Explosive Substances Act 1883. These provisions came about because, in meeting the Law Enforcement Commission's requirements, the Irish Government wished to propose the reform of Section 3 of their Explosive


Substances Act, so that anyone who committed one of the preparatory acts in Section 3 in Ireland, or an Irish citizen who does so anywhere in the world, with intent to cause an explosion anywhere in the world, can be tried in the Republic.
As this provision was to be included in the Irish Bill, Her Majesty's Government decided that reciprocal provisions should be included in our Bill. The original Irish Bill introduced in the Dail in November 1974 did not include a provision regarding the substantive offence under Section 2 of the 1883 Act, and the Irish were accordingly invited to reciprocate, which they did in the newly presented Bill which was introduced in the Seanad on 10th April 1975.
The effect of Clause 7 is to extend the Explosive Substances Act so that courts anywhere in the United Kingdom will have jurisdiction to try two kinds of explosive offences aimed at targets in the Republic. The first is conspiracy to cause an explosion, whether or not an explosion does in fact happen, and this offence is contained in Section 3 of the 1883 Act. The Republic's Bill at Clause 4 extends to preparatory acts aimed at explosions outside Ireland, enabling anyone who conspired in the Republic, or an Irish citizen who conspired anywhere else to cause an explosion, to be tried in the Republic. It was felt that we should indicate clearly that reciprocity is available under United Kingdom law.
In fact, it is already an offence triable in United Kingdom courts for anyone in Her Majesty's Dominions, or a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies anywhere, to conspire to cause an explosion in the Republic, but Clause 7 re-enacts these provisions in clearer form. This was done because the relevant provision is contained in an obscure Irish Free State (Consequential Adaptation of Enactments) Order of 1923 made at Westminster, and it is desirable, I am advised, to have the law restated.

Mr. Carol Mather: I believe that the equivalent legislation in the Republic did not include actually causing an explosion but only conspiring to cause an explosion. It was said in the other place that a change would be made. Has that been done?
Clause 7 is a bit of an anomaly, in that it applies to the United Kingdom as a whole, whereas the other part applies only to Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. The clause does not cover a Birmingham bomber fleeing to the Republic. There is no extradition to get him back here, and there is no provision for evidence on commission.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman referred to a debate in another place. I am given to understand that the matter has now been dealt with. I shall come to the general questions in a minute. The point about Clause 7 is that it is different in kind from the rest of the Bill and is not extradition. It is not extraterritorality, in the sense which the Law Enforcement Commission advised. I shall come to the principle of the hon. Gentleman's point in a moment.
The second offence to which Clause 7 refers is the substantive offence of causing an explosion. As there is already jurisdiction to try in the United Kingdom persons accused of acts preparatory to causing an explosion in the Republic, it is inconsistent not to cover explosions actually caused, which is the point that the hon. Gentleman made.
Clause 12, which provides amendments to the law concerned with the prosecution of offences, is not connected with the extraterritorial aspects of the Bill, but is introduced as a matter of convenience to clarify the existing law. This clause and the related amendments come into force on Royal Assent.
Some hon. Members may think that the Bill as a whole should be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom—the point that the hon. Member made—so that terrorists who escape from Great Britain to the Republic and are not handed back under extradition procedures should not escape justice but should be brought to trial in the Republic. In fact this purpose would not be achieved simply by an extension of the United Kingdom Bill. It is not something that we can just do by ourselves. It is the Republic which would have to legislate to create the extraterritorial jurisdiction required to enable Irish courts to deal with a fugitive who has committed a terrorist offence in Great Britain.
As I said earlier, the primary purpose of the main provisions of our Bill is to confer jurisdiction so as to enable the


terrorist who commits an offence in the Republic and crosses the border to be dealt with in Northern Ireland. Quite apart from these provisions, Clause 7 amends United Kingdom law to allow people to be tried in the United Kingdom for certain explosive offences committed in the Republic. In order to enable a terrorist in the reverse situation to be dealt with in the absence of extradition—that is, where he commits an offence in Great Britain and escapes to the Republic— we have to look to the Irish Republic's legislation. In other words, the particular value to the United Kingdom of this package again lies in the other half of it—the Irish Bill, which enables an Irish citizen who caused an explosion in London to be dealt with in the Republic, if extradition is not possible. It is the Irish Bill which deals with the point to which the hon. Gentleman was referring.

Sir Michael Havers: It is very unlikely that, for example, a bomber in Dublin who escaped to the United Kingdom would not be extradited. As the Secretary of State says, the issue concerns somebody who plots to bomb in Guildford, Woolwich or Birmingham and then escapes to Dublin. I can understand that, as has been clear, it is not for the House alone to deal with that. It will require the co-operation of the Southern Irish Republic. Have any negotiations been entered into for that purpose? If so, what success is the right hon. Gentleman having?

Mr. Rees: What I have learnt has come from reading the report of the Law Enforcement Commission, which was still meeting when I took office. Given the whole emotional attitude to the matter in the Republic of Ireland, I felt that it was important to deal with the problem for which I had responsibility. If negotiations on that matter had been opened, the Bill would not be ready. I have not the slightest doubt of that. It would have taken a long time to open up matters beyond what was agreed at Sunningdale. That is the point that I had to take into account.
If legislation were to be introduced here to confer extra-territorial jurisdiction in the United Kingdom for a wider range of terrorist offences, not only would this need to be based on a willingness of the Irish to pass reciprocal legislation, but

the justification for the exceptional measures which would be necessary in Britain would have to be carefully considered in the light of the circumstances at the time. For reasons of geography, if for no other, the scale of the problem of fugitive offenders is not nearly as great for Great Britain as for Northern Ireland. The land border in Ireland obviously offers facilities for quick escape which do not apply between Great Britain and the Republic. The sea is a barrier, and there are controls at the ports.
That is not to say that there are no problems, but the difference in scale is a relevant factor when one would have to consider, in relation to Great Britain—this is not something which will appeal to hon. Members from Northern Ireland—major breaches in our traditional basis of jurisdiction and trial procedures, because if it were to apply here we should have to have trial without jury—that has been altered in Northern Ireland for other reasons—in order to get reciprocity with the arrangements in the South. It is not just a question of a political discussion. It is a question of altering the procedures of the courts here.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Surely what the right hon. Gentleman is saying confirms the argument advanced by the distinguished British judges who served on the Law Enforcement Commission and who recommended extradition, because that would at a stroke put an end to the immunity enjoyed by fugitive political offenders. It would apply to the whole United Kingdom. Surely that is the answer. It would not need all this complicated and cumbersome legislation.

Mr. Rees: A number of alternatives were offered in the report of the Law Enforcement Commission. This is the one which was agreeable to both sides.

Mr. McCusker: It is a second best.

Mr. Rees: It may be a second best. It may be a third best or fifty fifth best. I am saying that there is no point in proceeding with alternatives which are not mutually agreeable. This was the way forward. I have been assured by those who were present that, however much they wanted something else, they are convinced that this system can work, and that is what matters to me.
Since the beginning of 1971 some 43 warrants for persons accused of terrorist offences have been sent from Northern Ireland to the Republic—the point that was made earlier. This may not seem a very large number, but the failure to bring to justice the people alleged to have committed such crimes inflames opinion, particularly in Northern Ireland, and hinders peace. In the future I hope that the assurances we have given and the provisions in the Bill concerning the confidentiality of the names of witnesses will result in more witnesses coming forward. The effectiveness of the scheme depends to a large extent on co-operation between the RUC and the Gardai Siochana, and the Irish Government have agreed to provide every assistance to help the RUC in its investigations. Similarly, cross border co-operation is essential when mounting prosecutions and both Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic have pledged that they will work closely together.
One other point that is important for discussions that will flow from now is that the Bill will exist side by side with normal extradition arrangements, which will continue in appropriate cases. If a person is released in the extradition proceedings—which are not a trial but concerned only with the return of the fugitive—it will be possible for him to be tried extra-territorially. In such circumstances it would be for the prosecuting authority to decide whether to admit evidence which had come to light in the extradition proceedings, which might well be admissible at a subsequent trial under the extraterritorial arrangements.
The Bill will not, however, be retrospective and as a result existing extradition proceedings will have to be relied on to deal with all offences committed before it comes into force. As I have explained it has always been unacceptable in this country to give retrospective effect to a law which created a new offence, and a similar view is held by the legal authorities in the Republic. The Bill creates new offences in Clauses 2 and 3 but also provides for offences committed in the Republic to be offences in Northern Ireland and these offences are "new" in the legal sense of the word.
We should have liked a solution based on an amendment of the extradition laws.

On the other hand, the Republic would probably have preferred an "all-Ireland court". Thus, neither of us have got our first choice but nevertheless we are resolved to make this scheme, to which we both agree, a success.
The Bill will deny a refuge to the offender, may possibly deter him, and by its very existence should help keep this difficult matter out of the political arena in the future. Therefore, even if politically motivated crimes of violence virtually disappeared in Northern Ireland, we should still need the Bill.
The two Governments are acting as one in their desire to bring the terrorist to justice and bring to an end the violence in Northern Ireland. This Bill, and the equivalent Irish Bill, removes a hiding place for political offenders and the reciprocity on Clause 7 offers a protection to the whole of the United Kingdom.
I commend the Bill to the House.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: We welcome the intention behind this complicated Bill, even though it is, as the Secretary of State agrees, a second-best solution. He has already pointed out that it implements the recommendations of the Anglo-Irish Law Enforcement Commission which was set up in 1973. We regard the Bill as a first step towards dealing with what the Lord Chancellor, in another place, quite rightly called "a pernicious scandal". Unfortunately, it is no less necessary today than it was 18 months ago.
The Secretary of State said that it was a regrettable fact—and one could use stronger language than that—that terrorists could escape justice by fleeing across the border into the Irish Republic and claiming political motivation for their crimes. This fact has outraged a great many people throughout the United Kingdom. As the Secretary of State says, the most important part of the Bill is that terrorists should not be able to use that political motivation, which has also damaged, in the past at any rate—and I hope it will not be the case in the future—the prospects of neighbourly co-operation between the two parts of Ireland. I hope that this co-operation will improve as a result of the Bill. Any measure which


helps to deal with this problem should be welcomed by the House, although we have some reservations which I shall discuss.
By agreeing to this reciprocal legislation the London and Dublin Governments have recognised their common interest in eliminating terrorism and violence throughout these islands.
We hope to see the Bill complete its passage through the House and come into effect, although we shall have many points to make in this debate. It is unfortunate that some 18 months have already elapsed since the Commission was appointed to consider:
as a matter of extreme urgency
the most effective way of dealing with these crimes.
I believe that at present some 43 warrants for terrorist offences, many of them involving the most serious of crimes, are outstanding, and that 14 of these have been unsuccessfully forwarded in the past 18 months. The view has been expressed by some people in Northern Ireland that this matter has not been treated with the urgency it deserves. I do not wish to elaborate on that, but I hope that a speedy passage and determined implementation of these measures will help to allay such fears in the Province.
The Bill is only half of the total agreement between the two Governments and its success depends on the implementation of the parallel legislation, about which we have heard, which is at present going through the Dublin Parliament. The Secretary of State said that the Bills should be twins. It has been rightly pointed out that they certainly will not he born on the same day. We hope nevertheless that progress will be made in Dublin. We believe that the Government in Dublin are well aware of the importance of this legislation. On my recent visit to Dublin I discussed this with them and its importance in building up good will.
The Secretary of State will agree that effective security will be needed on both sides of the border if the Bill is to work and succeed. We are grateful to him for explaining the Bill. It is complicated. It applies an "extra-territorial" solution,

namely, that the courts in each part of Ireland should have jurisdiction to try an agreed schedule of terrorist-type offences. The Bill also makes special arrangements for the taking of evidence on commission to protect witnesses. We support the view of the British judges on the Law Enforcement Commission that this is not the ideal solution. Extradition has many points in its favour, one of which is its relative simplicity. It would certainly avoid the cumbersome administrative procedures, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has drawn attention, which will be followed in carrying out the extra-territorial system.
The learned judges on the British side took the view that international law permitted exceptions to the principle forbidding:
the extradition of fugitive political offenders"—
under international law—
when the enormity or barbarism of the crime justifies an exception. We hold the view that the terrorists operating in Northern Ireland, whatever their motivation, fall within such an exception.
It is, perhaps, a pity that that view could not be upheld by the judges on both sides.
The judges on the British side also expressed the opinion that
there is a far greater risk of an infringement of the right of fair trial with the extraterritorial method than with the extradition method.
I quote those paragraphs from the report because they show how careful we have to be in carrying out this legislation and what special security steps will have to be taken, especially over witnesses. We have these proposals as a compromise. I have already stressed the importance of good will, but the movement of lawyers, accused and judges from one part of Ireland to another will require the closest co-operation between the respective security forces and judiciaries, as will the arrangements for the protection of witnesses.
Intimidation of witnesses is a danger in any court proceedings in violent circumstances, and it will certainly remain so. However, the Bill goes as far as possible to try to deal with this danger. Clause 5 provides for the non-disclosure


of names and addresses, which we welcome. I raise only one query on Clause 5, namely, whether it is necessary for a fair trial in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland that the court should be compelled to reveal the full address of a witness to the accused. In the course of the Attorney-General's reply perhaps he will comment on this.
I turn back to Clause 2, which deals with the hijacking of vehicles. This has been quite a serious problem for a long time and we welcome the creation in this clause of this new offence of hijacking a vehicle or ship. I understand that in 1974 alone some 1,300 vehicles were hijacked. We should realise that this figure does not include the theft, as I think the Secretary of State will agree, of empty vehicles, but only of incidents where people are stopped by terrorists while going about their proper business and ordered at gunpoint to deliver a "proxy" bomb or to hand over their vehicle for other terrorist uses.
This is a far bigger problem than that figure suggests. We can appreciate its size by recognising that fact. We can also appreciate the background against which the ordinary people of Northern Ireland are living at present by those figures and the other terrorists problems from which they have suffered.
I should like to deal further with Clause 3. We welcome the clause in some respects, but I am not clear about a number of points which arise. I am not clear whether the offence of escape or rescue from "legal custody" in Clause 3 is exactly reciprocated in the Irish Bill. The terminology here is slightly different. Clause 3 is entitled
Escape or rescue from detention in Republic of Ireland.
Does the word "detention" in this Bill include detention without trial under the Offences Against the State Act? I see the Secretary of State shaking his head in dissent. I am glad to know the answer to that point. Equally, does the term "lawful custody" in the Irish Bill include detention under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act? This point needs resolving. Or does this refer in both cases only to where a person is subject to the procedure of the courts? Is that the position? As this is agreed

legislation, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General will underline the point if the answer is clear.
The Secretary of State has pointed out that the Bill goes beyond the scope of the Law Enforcement Commission's proposals, as the commission was limited by its terms of reference to the problems of Ireland. This point has already been raised and will be raised again by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), I expect, and by other hon. Friends during the debate.
Since 1973 we in this country have gained considerable knowledge of the havoc which terror bombing can cause—at the Tower of London and in Birmingham. The inclusion of Clause 7, which extends the Bill to deal with bombing and conspiracy to bomb, is, therefore, to be welcomed. But the reciprocal legislation will be especially important on these points, although there will be real practical problems in its application. As the clause is different in kind from the rest of the Bill, whether this should be applied to the United Kingdom as a whole is a matter that my hon. Friends are certain to raise. I do not wish to go into that now.
I think that the Attorney-General will agree that terrorist crimes in this country are not confined to bombing—as the murder of Constable Tibble has tragically illustrated. His killer is now said to be in Dublin. If the clause is confined only to the causing of explosions or the attempt to cause them, what is the position of a terrorist who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who commits a murder other than by causing an explosion, for instance by shooting, and escapes to the Republic, there to claim political motivation? Will the Attorney-General look at that point? It is apparently not covered by Clause 7. We can all think of one Britsh citizen who has in recent years claimed to be the IRA chief-of-staff. We know who that is.
An Irish citizen, as I understand it, who committed murder by a means other than causing an explosion, that is to say, by shooting, would be subject to the 1861 Act, which has recently been reactivated in Dublin. But as I understand it, that Act would not apply to


attempted murder or wounding, in London or Birmingham for example. Perhaps the Attorney-General would look at that matter. I should like to hear the Government's thinking on these points explained to the House.
We must all agree that the fewer the possible loopholes there are for the terrorists, the better it will be for everyone in the United Kingdom as a whole.
I continue on Clause 7. If we confine ourselves to the explosive offences outlined here, another point arises. That is the growth of international terrorism. If a person who is not a British citizen or is not a citizen of a dependency, as described in the Bill, causes an explosion or conspires to do so in the Republic and subsequently escapes to Britain, is he liable under the Bill? If a person who is not an Irish citizen conspires to cause an explosion in Britain and subsequently escapes to the Republic, what is his position? I am talking about a person who is not an Irish citizen. The House should have clarification on these points, since it does not appear that in either case they would be prosecuted, even though extradition on our side were to operate. That may be something that the Attorney-General may have in mind in regard to the Littlejohn case, for example. It is a matter upon which the House should hear further.
As I have said, a major point of controversy surrounds the non-extension of the Bill to the whole of the United Kingdom and as to what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to Dublin about this. This is an important matter. We shall wish to have information on it during the debate.
The Bill represents the determination of two Governments to stand up to and try to deal with terrorism, and to deny gunmen or bombers a hiding place from which they can prey upon our citizens. Its duration is indefinite, as any such commitment should be. Certainly the Opposition hope that it will result in greater co-operation at all levels against the terrorists—between Governments, armies, police forces and the courts—so that elected leaders in Ulster will be able to work out their proposals in the future in an atmosphere which is not constantly threatened by violence.

4.57 p.m.

Sir Peter Rawlinson: Ever since the start of the troubled times, there has not been a person who has not been gravely concerned about this problem. It has existed from the very moment that the emergency in Northern Ireland began. Obviously, there was grave, bitter resentment among persons in Northern Ireland when they saw the ease with which persons who had committed offences could cross the long land border and disappear into the South—not only, of course, cross the border from the North, but also go across the water.
It is with shame that a member of my faith considers that there may even be a priest in Southern Ireland who has evaded what he ought to do—which is stand his trial for offences in another jurisdiction, in Scotland. I am sure that other hon. Members of other faiths would, in the same circumstances, feel the same. So this is something which has always caused the very gravest of concern to every person.
When this was raised at Sunningdale, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will recollect, all of us knew, as did anyone who had any experience of Northern Ireland, which as an Englishman I have, that there were two possible solutions, but that they were both politically unacceptable to one side or the other. One was the creation of an All-Ireland court, so that we would have judges from the Republic sitting in Northern Ireland and judges from Northern Ireland sitting in the Republic. It was known that this would be seen to be totally unacceptable to some who said that by so doing one therefore accepted the possibility of a united Ireland, and that this would be a concession given to those who sought for a united Ireland.
On the other side—and this is what a lawyer would consider to be the easiest, most sensible and most practical method—the Republic of Ireland could enter into a new mutual extradition treaty with the United Kingdom to provide for the return of fugitive offenders. But that would be impractical and politically unacceptable to the Republic of Ireland. Public opinion in the Republic would


never accept that. Those are the realities which we, as practical politicians, have to understand and accept.
Once the Law Enforcement Commission was set up it was thus inevitable that there would arise out of it this compromise. The judges discussed the matter carefully among themselves. I say this with affection, but it must have been embarrassing for the judges of the Republic of Ireland to have had to put up such lame legal replies to Lord Justice Scarman and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. So the Commission had to come up with a compromise, and this is the best compromise that could be reached. I fully accept that. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) welcomed the Bill, but we must not forget what it omits.
For example, in the Price sisters case some of the gang were taken off the aeroplane just before it took off for Dublin. If they had got to Dublin they could have marched round Dublin waving streamers and saying "We blew up the Old Bailey, we blew up Scotland Yard, and nothing can be done about it." Nothing could be done about it not even now, and that is what is omitted from the Bill. Since December 1974 it may be that if a bombing resulted in murder or manslaughter that could be dealt with as murder or manslaughter. In the Price sisters case that was neither murder nor manslaughter, so the case could not be dealt with in Ireland under the new law.
And just think what would happen if after a murder by bombing of certain people in the United Kingdom the perpetrators got away to the Republic of Ireland and were prosecuted by the Irish authorities. Such prosecutions rest upon the evidence of many people. There is always a great deal of forensic, scientific and police evidence. Such trials take weeks and sometimes months. One trial this year at the Central Criminal Court lasted many months, others are taking place, and there are more to come. Are all the police offices, scientific witnesses, bystanders and other witnesses to be taken across to Dublin to give their evidence? I hope that they might agree to, but it is difficult and it would not be possible to prove murder or manslaughter unless that evidence were given over there.
It may be said that this evidence could be taken on commission. Is it possible to take that kind of evidence on commission? Is it to be read at the trial? The witnesses are not seen at the trial and cannot be challenged, and there is not the same atmosphere. Thus, it is a tremendous problem, and no one who has considered the Bill can ignore these difficulties.
While we are dealing as practically as we can with the problem vis-à-vis Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, we omit, and are obliged to omit, the problem which arises when offences are perpetrated here and the perpetrators escape to the Republic. In passing, may I say how remarkably efficient the police have been so far in preventing such escapes—certainly in the case to which I referred.
There are two matters which bedevil the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The first I have spoken of many times before and that is the persistence with which the Republic puts the Irish State case to the European Commission on Human Rights. I would not mind if individuals did that, but the fact that the Republic of Ireland and its Ministers have persisted in that course involving allegations against British Ministers—

Mr. Gerard Fitt: It is a matter of conscience.

Sir P. Rawlinson: If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about conscience, I hope that he will parade his conscience before the House. The senior officers of one State and Ministers of the State are saying to another State "This is what you have done and you must take the responsibility". At the same time they are saying "Let us negotiate"—

Mr. Fitt: If the Irish Government felt that they had a case to bring before the European Court, are not the British Government prepared to abide by the decision? The British Government uphold law and order in this country and we are recognised throughout the world as a country with great respect for law and order. It seems that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to accept that the British Government will be found guilty. It may be that they will be completely exonerated.

Sir P. Rawlinson: The process before the European Commission after it has come to a conclusion is that there is consultation and there may be reference to Ministers or alternatively to the European Court. A great deal of the process has still to be gone through.
All I am saying, as one with affection for and relations within the Republic of Ireland, is that I very much regret that the Government of the Republic of Ireland have persisted in that State application. If individuals had cared to bring it, so be it. But once a State levels an accusation against another State it is difficult for the accused State to react on a certain line and to take a certain attitude when facing accusers, who may well refer to persons over whom the accused State has no control, accusers who say that Ministers have responsibility for infamous acts.
I believe profoundly in the importance of good relations between Dublin and London. But that action has bedevilled the relationship between those who otherwise would be considered to be friendly indeed to the Republic of Ireland. Secondly, good relations are certainly bedevilled by escaping fugitives, which is a matter that causes resentment.
As have many other hon. Members, I have had letters from soldiers saying what they are doing in Northern Ireland. One man wrote to me saying that a person who had committed infamous murders in Northern Ireland had got away across the border and was being treated as a perfectly free person and was able to do as he liked. That soldier said that he had had his own particular views on Ireland before that happened but his view had changed as a result. What can one reply except that the judges in the Republic of Ireland have to carry out the law? I make no criticism of them. I do not blame the judges, who have criticised harshly those who have made applications to dismiss extradition proceedings. The judges are in a straitjacket caught by the law as it is in the Republic of Ireland.
I therefore welcome the Bill which goes some way to deal with this problem, but we should not overlook what it does not do. Until that problem has been tackled and until there is negotiation between Ministers and officials of the Republic of

Ireland and the United Kingdom there will always be a feeling of bitterness and anxiety amongst those who otherwise would long for a solution to the Anglo-Irish problem.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I doubt very much whether any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, or any section of the House, will display any great degree of enthusiasm for this measure.
It may be appropriate that in the same span of seven days the House has wrestled with the weightly problems of hare coursing and sex discrimination and now this Bill. Like a second marriage the Bill is a triumph of hope over experience. In fairness, let me say that I do not believe that the present administration, left to their own devices would have willingly gone in this direction. Nor, I suspect, would they have selected the route chosen in December 1973 by the former Conservative administration, which, deaf to all warnings, steered straight on to the rocks. The Sunningdale wreck is now submerged apart from the section of the hulk with which we are now concerned.
The House will have gathered that we have serious reservations. First, we have reservations as to the prospects of the matching measure in Dublin that is to be approved by the Dail. I understand that it is meeting with considerable opposition—so much so that it has had to be witdhrawn from the Lower House on a motion carried by only two votes. Further, I understand that it is now with the Senate. It is not very difficult to guess what its fate will be when it returns to the Lower Chamber.
Our second reservation concerns the effectiveness of legislation which, on the admission of the Law Enforcement Commission, is based on considerations of expediency and not on any requirement that the law should be sound. We have had further confirmation of that today. It seems that each side took different views as to what the ideal situation should be. They could not secure agreement and they settled for a compromise which both sides knew was not likely to be effective, which did not make for good law.
Looking at the Bill as it stands, it seems to me that the Government missed a great opportunity some six months ago.


As was indicated by the Lord President in the House and later confirmed in correspondence which he had with my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and myself, at that time the Government were giving serious consideration to extending the Bill to cover the whole of the United Kingdom. On 7th January 1975, to be exact, we promised our full support for the principle that the United Kingdom should be treated as the complete political entity that we all rightly claim it to be. Therefore, we reject the grotesque statement in Paragraph 38(c) of the Law Enforcement Commission's report, which reads:
the proposal is the most appropriate since politically motivated offences of violence are, in effect, offences committed in both parts of the island and against the island as a whole irrespective of the jurisdiction in which they are committed.
Whatever the intention, that paragraph clearly implies that Northern Ireland is an entity distinct from the rest of the United Kingdom. For Ulster Members it may be some consolation to note the contradiction contained in Paragraph 39(e) of the same report, the closing words of which read:
Moreover, the terms of the Constitution of Ireland could embarrass judges of both the Republic and Northern Ireland when sitting outside their own jurisdictions, since it is inconsistent with the legislative sovereignty in Northern Ireland of the United Kingdom Parliament.
The failure of the report and of the Bill clearly to recognise the United Kingdom as not only a political entity but as one legal jurisdiction is as objectionable to us as the Sunningdale Agreement itself, from which both matters sprang. My right hon. and hon. Friends will seek at a later stage to remedy this major defect. I trust that the House will recognise our sensitivity on matters which in internal legislation within the United Kingdom appear to weaken our position within that kingdom. The House will also accept, I am sure, that our sensitivity is greatly increased when it comes to dealing with international agreements with another sovereign State, as is the case in this measure.
It has been suggested that the Bill is an alternative to the most obvious and sensible solution—namely, extradition. In our view the Bill is not an alternative and certainly not an adequate substitute.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may have been nearer the mark when he said that the Bill may not be second best but 55th best. I think that that estimate was much more accurate.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Hear, hear.

Mr. Molyneaux: The United Kingdom element in the Law Enforcement Commission—not the Northern Ireland element—never pretended that it was a substitute. It was quite clear that in its view there was no moral justification for refusing extradition given the situation obtaining in the entire British Isles at that time.
As regards the refusal to grant extradition and the right of States to sustain such refusal, we can see, and we have seen, examples of this kind of legal conflict between sovereign States. For example, if so-called freedom fighters have the sympathy and support of a neighbouring State, it obviously becomes difficult for the Government of that State to accede to demands that criminals and terrorists be extradited. Sympathy, however mistaken, might be understandable though not acceptable in that kind of case.
I turn to what to my mind is the key question—namely, by what stretch of the imagination can the Government and Parliament of the Irish Republic, or the courts of the Republic, uphold the claim to political status of men of violence who, by common consent and by their own admission, have degenerated to the level of gangsters and have been operating for motives of gain and little else?
Extradition would not seem to be a particularly harsh demand in the context of what is virtually common citizenship throughout the whole of the British Isles.
In no challenging sense I sincerely ask the Government and Parliament of the Irish Republic to look again at the issue of extradition in the light of recent developments. I give one example—namely, the fierce infighting that is taking place within the various terrorist camps for the spoils and cash rewards of terrorism.
We must ask ourselves whether all responsible authorities should not now be asking what sort of cause is being served by any of the terrorist organisations anywhere in the South of Ireland and, indeed anywhere in the United


Kingdom. In whose interest is it that these men should be allowed to go free? I do not think that such an appeal needs to be addressed to my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who has given such a helpful lead in the Northern Ireland Convention. I trust that that will continue and that it will broaden into general support for the forces of law and order throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. It is my view that the only form of a united Ireland worth anything at all is an Ireland united in a determined effort to stamp out terrorism, gangsterism and thuggery in the United Kingdom by whatever name it goes.
Finally, let me restate our disappointment at the severely limited benefits of the effects of the Bill. We will share the disappointment of Her Majesty's Government and this House if the Eire authorities do not deliver their half of the package. However, despite these fears and reservations, my colleagues and I will not seek to obstruct the passage of this measure.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: Since there is universal support for the objectives of the Bill, I thought that the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) was a little churlish in his attitude to the Bill. There is no doubt that although the Bill contains deficiencies, it is based on legislation which is clearly the product of a long and painstaking series of negotiations. Obviously, the parties have not been operating against the easiest of backgrounds. We know that great efforts have been made to bring about the effective enforcement of the law. Although it may be accurate to describe these provisions as second best, they are nevertheless a considerable achievement. We can only hope that the Bill will become law as soon as possible.
Having said that at the outset, I feel that there are one or two deficiencies which it is reasonable to criticise. Although it is true that retrospective legislation in substantive criminal law is regarded as an alien concept, that is not altogether true when dealing with matters of procedure. I recall the situation in regard to the Treason Act 1945 when the procedure was simplified for the trial

of Joyce and Amery. There was a radical restructuring of the procedure in regard to the treason law. Although the persons concerned were outside the United Kingdom, the fact is that that was a piece of retrospective legislation. It did not change the substantive nature of treason but it changed the nature of the procedures involved.
I believe that retrospective application of this Bill would not be unreasonable when we bear in mind that a large number of persons have been able to flout the law, and indeed have gloried in doing so for a considerable time. Those offences would be regarded as offences in any society and those concerned should be brought to justice as soon as possible. Perhaps it is impracticable to have second thoughts on this matter, which may involve twin legislation in the United Kingdom and in the Irish Republic. It may not be possible to do any more in that respect. However, it is necessary that that criticism should be made.
It is a pity that the whole United Kingdom is not subject to the provisions of Clause 7. At the moment there is a lull in regard to the bomb outrages, but nobody can be certain that this will be continued. It is some months since the last explosion occurred, but as a representative of the City of Birmingham, which was subject to possibly the worst outrage of the lot, I should be pleased if something were done to bring about a further extension of this legislation to the whole of the United Kingdom.
It is surely not unreasonable for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to consider this point with his opposite numbers in Dublin. I accept that the Dublin Government are as keen to end outrages of this nature as are the United Kingdom Government. In many ways psychologically their task is more difficult than that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because his attitude is in no way ambivalent—which perhaps is not the case in regard to all the subjects of Northern Ireland. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable if something more were said on this topic.
It is true that most of the offences which have been perpetrated have led to a trial. The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir P. Rawlinson) said that it was only a matter of chance that the Old Bailey bombers


were caught. They were caught because the rail strike delayed their escape. One cannot be sure that the same thing will not happen on similar occasions in the future. There may be a glaring anomaly in that respect and I hope that something more will be done to cover the situation.
I wish to refer to Clause 2 which contains a number of new offences. Rightly, the hijacking of vehicles is included in the offences brought within the scope of the Bill. Perhaps it is a drafting omission and it may not be a matter of great importance, but one wonders why the hijacking of aircraft is not included. I know that this does not happen very often, but there have been spectacular instances involving the hijacking of aircraft in recent years and surely it would be reasonable to amend the Bill to include that category. Perhaps the Minister can deal with this matter in his reply to the debate.
We should all commend the Bill and speed it on its way. There was a time when there was a degree of mitigation in dealing with political offences. There are still parts of the world where that might be a reasonable view. I refer to people who commit a certain kind of offence in the Soviet Union or in South Africa and who may still enlist a good deal of sympathy. But the concept of political offence has been debased by the events in Ireland. One has less and less sympathy with persons in almost any circumstances who plead that kind of defence for their acts.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): I should have intervened when my hon. Friend was dealing with hijacking. For the sake of accuracy, I should inform him that it is already an offence under the 1971 legislation to hijack an aircraft. This provision is included in the schedule.

Mr. Lee: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend, and of course I accept what he says.
I hope that the legislation will be rigorously enforced. The real test will be when the time comes for the taking of evidence outside the jurisdiction of the respective countries which are concerned to see that witnesses are protected so that they may give evidence. In certain cir-

cumstances there may be reluctance by witnesses to come forward. Often a reluctant witness can be a bad witness, but he is often better than no witness. No doubt the Minister in replying to the debate will refer to the question of reciprocity in regard to the compellability of witnesses in the Irish Republic.
I should like to deal with the subject of the disclosure of witnesses' names and addresses. In many instances involving non-political criminal trials witnesses' names and addresses are written down and not disclosed to the defendants. Those names may be disclosed to legal advisers but they are not shown to defendants. I cannot see why there should not be a similar safeguard in the situation covered by the Bill.
When we disclose the names of witnesses in circumstances such as these we reach a situation in which there will be feedback of that information to another terrorist organisation which will wreak vengeance upon the persons concerned on both sides of the border. We forget the basis of this Bill. Terrorism knows no frontiers. Frontiers are increasingly less of a protection for anyone these days, given a determined, ruthless and fanatical body of persons willing to carry out terrorist acts.
It would be wrong of us not to welcome this Bill. We must congratulate the Minister on what is a piece of patient good work which we hope will produce good results in repairing a situation in which there has been a glaring deficiency for a long time past.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. and learned Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee)—

Mr. Lee: Not learned.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The hon. Gentleman appears very learned.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth asked us to speed the passage of the Bill. I think that we should do so. I hope that his words will find an echo across the Irish Sea.
It is often said that the best is the enemy of the good. We welcome a Bill which has been described several times in the debate as second best, and once,


by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), as fifth best.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) told us that fugitive offenders have been extradited quite easily from north to south. He asked why that should not happen the other way. Why not, indeed? Extradition would be the most appropriate way to deal with this problem. It was extradition for which Sir Robert Lowry and Lord Justice Scarman argued so forcibly in the law enforcement commission set up after Sunningdale.
We must be realistic. We must welcome any attempt—especially an attempt made in the two sovereign Parliaments, working together I hope—to end what the Lord Chancellor described in another place on 24th February as a pernicious scandal.
Like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth, I should like to refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) called the non-application of the Bill to the whole of the United Kingdom. That point was first made in Parliament by Lord Brookeborough in the other place. To meet it it would be necessary for the two Parliaments to legislate differently from what is at present before them. I suppose that it would be necessary for the legislation to be so drafted as to enable courts in the Republic to take evidence in Great Britain from witnesses, especially those of Irish origin, who would be unwilling, because fearful—and no blame to them, as the Secretary of State said—of crossing the sea to testify.
We make no difficulty and should make no difficulty in surrendering to Irish justice any political fugitive offenders from the Republic within British jurisdiction. The Littlejohn case, if it proves anything, proves that. Mr. Littlejohn has the right to feel aggrieved when he is in gaol and Father Burns, for example, is at large in the Republic. We have the right and the duty to press for reciprocity and to place it on the record of the House that we ought to have something better than this—if not, by an extradition treaty, which is the ideal, at least by an improvement of this legislation such as I have suggested. Surely, reciprocity—the word used by

the hon. Gentleman—is in the interests of the Republic as well as of the United Kingdom.
Members of Parliament are not likely to forget the Birmingham bombing—least of all the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth—or those at Aldershot or the Old Bailey. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir P. Rawlinson) made the point that, thanks to the vigilance and efficiency of the police, and perhaps because of an element of chance, a number of persons were arrested and tried in this country.
Suppose that, in the future, persons were guilty or suspected of such atrocities. They might recur, although I hope that they will not. Suppose such persons escaped to the Irish Republic, where they were apprehended and later released by a High Court Judge in Dublin using perforce—no blame to him—words such as were employed by Mr. Justice Finlay on 29th July 1974, when he said:
I am not entitled to have any regard to the fact that the admitted activities of the present applicant"—
the person it was proposed to extradite—
seem to breach any concept of humanity or any civilised form of conduct.
Consider these circumstances, if they were to occur in future. After Birmingham, there was a brief outburst of deplorable violence against the persons and property of Irish residents. Reprisals can never be jusified. They offend against honour and interest alike. They serve the purpose of terrorism.
But if those accused or suspected of slaying or mutilating British people in Britain or of blasting their shops, homes and pubs, were to be set free, so that they could glory in their exploits on Irish soil—because the defence of political motive is pulled like cloak across the face of murder—we would be foolish to assume that evil passions might not be stirred between some of our people and the Irish who live as respected persons amongst us. I said that reciprocity was in the interests of the Irish Republic. Relations between London and Dublin would surely be set back. They have improved remarkably under successive administrations, both here and in Dublin. Security forces on both sides of the border have been working together with more effect and determination than heretofore. In all that


there is nothing derogatory to the sovereignty of the Irish Republic or of the United Kingdom.
Terrorist movements seek the overthrow of constitutional democracy throughout Ireland and common action against a common enemy is common sense.
In his opening speech the Secretary of State described the present immunity enjoyed by fugitive political offenders as an affront. The Bill does not go all the way to wipe away that affront. I do not build too much on this Bill. The Senate in Dublin has dealt with it but the Dail has not yet started with it. That is the position as I understand it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the Bill is still in the Senate, where a filibuster is taking place, one Member having spoken from 8 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. the following morning. I am sure that no Member of Parliament would want that sort of speech.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am obliged. The situation is less advanced than I had thought. The lower House in Dublin has not yet begun its consideration of the measure, although parallel legislation is being discussed in Parliament today.
I should like to ask one small question of the Government spokesman who will wind up the debate. Assuming that we pass this Bill, are we to presume that the Queen will not be pleased to give her assent to the Bill until the appropriate stage has been reached in Dublin?
The Government of the Republic, together with the other parties at Sunningdale, described the problems which this Bill is intended to solve as of extreme urgency. The Sunningdale meeting took place one and a half years ago. Parliament is rightly making an act of faith in the Irish legislators, some of whom we were happy to welcome to the Palace of Westminster recently.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I do not intend to speak at any great length but I wish to draw attention to the political aspects of the Bill, and, in view or the political atmospheres that are

slowly being created in Northern Ireland, I want to avoid saying anything that would lead to a falling off in the trust and confidence that we are very slowly and tentatively building up. I rise only to say that the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) will be interpreted in Northern Ireland in many different ways.
The reason for this legislation and its equivalent in the Dail was brought about by the Sunningdale negotiations. Those talks did not exclusively relate to the problem of law and order or the problem of violence in Ireland. They related to the whole political situation. A valiant attempt, which did not succeed, was made by all parties at Sunningdale—those representing Northern Ireland's political interests and representatives from the British and Irish Governments—to create new political structures allied with legislation designed to bring to an end the terrible campaign of violence which Northern Ireland has suffered for so long.
In all my public statements I can never be in any way connected at any time with giving support to violent organisations. The hon. Member for Antrim, South said that this Bill was the remains of the Sunningdale Agreement, that the rest of it had sunk, like a hulk, to the bottom of the sea. There will be many people in Northern Ireland who will say that this legislation was part of a political package that was created at Sunningdale, that all the other aspects and agreements which were then arrived at have gone and that we are now left with this last issue. In these circumstances there will be many people in the Republic of Ireland who were associated with the Sunningdale Agreement, and there will be members of extremist organisations and people who support the campaign of violence, who will say to the Irish Government and the Irish people, "Why implement this aspect of Sunningdale to the total exclusion of all the other aspects which were brought crashing to the ground by the Ulster workers' strike last year?"
I am aware how delicate an issue this is. I am not expressing an opinion one way or another on the legislation except to say that I have never supported anyone who has been engaged in violence. I do not like this Bill, any more than the


Act which conferred special powers in Northern Ireland, or the emergency provisions or prevention of terrorism legislation which is on the statute book here. However, if it is necessary to implement such legislation both here and in the Republic, those in political control must recognise what is is designed to achieve, and undue difficulties must not be placed in the way of those who are trying to eradicate violence from these islands.

5.45 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the House realises the spirit that motivates the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I am sure that it also recognises the political significance of some of the things he said today. I trust that his comment that undue difficulties should not be placed in the way of those who have to implement this legislation will be noted. We do not think the Bill is the best way of dealing with the problem, but we are practical men and it is the only way open to us at the moment. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland who support the hon. Member for Belfast, West will respond to his appeal not to obstruct the forces of the Crown in trying to carry out this legislation. That statement will be most welcome in Northern Ireland particularly among that part of the community which supports the forces of the Crown.
We are here taking an act of faith. Perhaps the House is not aware just how brave that act of faith is. However, there is certainly no enthusiasm in the Dail Eireann or in the Senad Eireann for this legislation. The House should be acquainted with the following facts. An equivalent Bill to this was introduced into the Dail in Dublin on 28th November 1974. It was due to be given a Second Reading on 12th December 1974, but it got lost until 9th April 1975. A motion was then put before the Dail to have it discharged and the Bill withdrawn. The Dail has therefore not yet considered the Bill.
On 10th April the Bill was introduced into the Seanad and there was a peculiar occurrence there. A vote was taken on the First Reading, which is a unique event. There was a narrow majority in favour. Those who have been following the progress of the Bill will have noted

how slow this has been. The Bill is now, I understand, in Committee.
It is being said that it is hoped that a new atmosphere can be created between the United Kingdom Parliament and the Parliament of the Republic as a result of this legislation. However, one has only to read some of the vicious and scurrilous attacks that have been made in the debates there upon British authority, and especially upon the security forces of the Crown as well as upon the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to realise how irresponsible are some of the members of the Seanad. One Senator, Mr. Bernard McGlinchey, has taken it upon himself vigorously to oppose the Bill. I understand that on one occasioin he spoke for five hours and on the next he spoke for over 10 hours about the Bill. He told the House that the RUC was the
scum of this earth and no Government in the Republic at any time should introduce legislation of this kind that would co-operate and collaborate with that scum".
As an Ulster representative I take this opportunity of defending the good name of the RUC. Remarks of that kind made in the Seanad of the South can only cause the most bitter and deep resentment in the North of Ireland. The same applies to other attacks made on the British Army and upon the security forces in general.
The learned Lord Chancellor, in speaking in another place, said that he hoped—and there was every reason to hope and believe—that the complementary Irish Bill to that which is now being considered will pass through the Dail. I think that is a vain hope. The previous Government of the South, the Government of the Fienna Fail Party, has declared publicly through its spokesman that, should this Bill become law, it will immediately be taken to the High Court and challenged on a constitutional basis. So we are by no means today assured that this Bill, as far as the South of Ireland is concerned, will ever reach the statute book.
Can we have an assurance today from the Government Front Bench that until it is law there will be no progress made concerning its coming into operation in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I indicated at the beginning that, with the exception of one or two other clauses, there would be no point in implementing it unless the other half was through the Dail Eireann.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am grateful. In a complex Bill of this kind—especially to laymen and to the general public—it is good to have that firm assurance. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is very well aware of the deep resentment felt in Northern Ireland at the fact that people are extradited from the North to the South and then, when warrants are brought in the South, these warrants have to be refused.
As an Ulster representative, I would add that we are not casting any reflection at all upon the courts of the South of Ireland, nor are we casting any reflections on the judges who have to administer the law in the South of Ireland, for on numerous occasions the judges have pointed out that they have no other option before them. They have condemned in strong language—and all honour to them—some of the deeds of those whom the authorities have sought to extradite to Northern Ireland, yet they have had to admit that under their present law these persons cannot be extradited. So it is not the fault of the judges, and we should give honour to these judges where honour is due to them.
I should like to say a few words about extradition. When the learned Attorney-General replies to the debate, would he care to tell us whether he agrees with the British judges in their appropriate extradition in Chapter VII. It should be pointed out to the House that the judges were very strong in regard to this matter. I notice that the former learned Attorney-General mentioned the weakness of the case brought against the arguments for extradition.
The British judges, who saw that extradition was the right way to deal with this problem, said in the Report of the Law Enforcement Commission, in their final submission, that
the right to refuse extradition is that of the requested state: it may be waived and confers no right on the alleged offender: by waiving the right a state commits no breach of international law since there is no rule or principle which compels a state to grant asylum".

In the submission made by the judges from the Republic they tried to hide behind international law in saying that this was a valid reason for the refusal of extradition.
I should like the learned Attorney-General to comment, if he would, upon that final submission in the Report of the Law Enforcement Commission.
The commission went on to say in its report that
international opinion distinguishes between purely political offences and terrorist acts, especially those which endanger innocent lives; and recognises the validity of exceptional measures for the latter class of acts".
Surely the time has come for "exceptional measures" to be taken. One can hardly judge the people of Northern Ireland for their resentment when a policeman can be brutally murdered and when those who have carried out the act can escape across the border and then glory in the fact. The sad thing about this Bill is that when it is passed it will make those people absolutely secure and, as it were, build up a firm buttress around the sanctuary, because there will be no going back on offences already committed.
The Report of the British Judges, in their final submission, said that
there is no internationally recognised distinction between the propriety of trying a fugitive political offender and surrendering him to the authorities of the place of the offence.
That is a vital point. What is the difference between trying them in the South of Ireland or sending them back to the North of Ireland, where they committed the offence, to be tried?
I should like the learned Attorney-General to comment on those final submissions, because I think that here we have the very heart of this matter. It should be recorded—I thought that the Secretary of State skimmed over this rather too lightly—that extradition was the first choice of the British members of the Law Enforcement Commission, who in Chapter VII recommended it as the most effective means of dealing with this problem. But the strange thing is that the judges from the South would not recommend it at all. That, to me, is a sad commentary upon their attitude.
Perhaps Senator Mary Robinson, a well-known Member of the Southern


Senate, can throw light on this. She is a constitutional lawyer in her own right. Speaking in the Senate on 29th April, 1975, in the Second Stage—resumed—of the Criminal Law Bill 1975, she said:
Looking at the extradition method, it is worth putting on the record of this House that, having examined the detailed arguments on both sides of the case for using the normal extradition method by designating certain types of offences which would not benefit from the classification of being political offences or connected with political offences so that persons could be extradited for them, I would express the personal opinion that the arguments put forward by the British team on the Law Enforcement Commission were much stronger and much better argued than the Irish arguments. However, when the four Irish members of the Law Enforcement Commission are united in opposition to this possibility it is not a political reality to consider that proposal.
The tragedy of this Bill is that politics have overshadowed what should be a real legal issue, and it is on that issue that the people of Northern Ireland rightly are concerned. Who could judge them for not being concerned?
We welcome every effort to deal with terrorism. We welcome every plan that may be put forward. But this is—as a noble Lord said in another place—an ingenious method. It is not a straightforward way of doing it. It is the result of compromise. It is because the British Government have had to concede to the Southern Government that this Bill is now before us.
What makes it more perplexing, and causes more resentment to the people of Northern Ireland, is that it has been sold in the South of Ireland as an extension of Irish law across the border and a strengthening of the constitutional claim of the South over Northern Ireland territory. Mr. Michael O'Higgins, the Leader of the Senate, told the senators that this Bill made no judgment whatever on the legitimacy or otherwise of the Northern Ireland Government. They are suggesting that there is to be a commission, that judges from the North are to take evidence, and that they will recognise that evidence in the courts of South. But they still question the legitimacy of the Northern Ireland State.
These are the matters which we, as representatives from Ulster, on behalf of our people rightfully resent, and we must enter our protest against them. But having said that, we do not want to

hinder any effort, no matter how weak it may be, to try to deal with something which is tearing the heart out of our Province. I trust that if this Bill gets through the Senate and the Dail, it will be applied with vigour and that we shall see those who have put their hands to the dastardly deeds that they have committed being brought to justice.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said about the speeches made in the Dublin Senate. They do not serve the cause of peace in Northern Ireland very well. But I understand that the Senator who engaged in the lengthly filibuster was told by the Minister of Justice that he could forgive him for speaking for so long and for speaking so loud, but not for being so boring. I learned that from a report in the Irish Independent. I have not had the advantage of reading Official Report of the proceedings, but I do not believe that those speeches will help feelings in Northern Ireland.
This Criminal Justice Bill, with its counterpart, which is, as we have said, making such slow progress through the Dublin Parliament, is meant to cure the present ridiculous and grave state of affairs whereby IRA terrorists can laugh contemptuously at the efforts of the police in Northern Ireland to have them returned to the Province to stand trial for their vile and violent crimes. This measure, and more particularly the reciprocal legislation in the Dail, is a complicated and roundabout way of achieving the worthy aim of handing out justice to terrorists.
The fact that it is complicated was confirmed by the Lord Chancellor in a speech in another place. Worse still, it is cumbersome, bearing in mind that the trial judges, the counsel and all the other staff, together with the defendant or defendants, must travel into the Irish Republic or, vice-versa, from the Republic into Northern Ireland. All that entourage will have to be protected by the Security Forces in Northern Ireland and Eire throughout the period of taking evidence on commission, which could last some time. That will further tax the security forces in Northern Ireland, who are already overburdened, and I feel that


the trial judges may be the subject of attacks by terrorists in Northern Ireland.
It is extraordinary, therefore, that we should have before us this piece of legislation, with all its difficulties, legal and otherwise, when all that the situation requires is that the Irish Republic should extradite the wanted men who at the moment are living happily in the Republic.
The considered opinion of the distinguished British judges who formed part of the Law Enforcement Commission was ovewhelmingly in favour of extradition. I shall not repeat the portions of the report read by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North, but there is no doubt that those distinguished British judges devastatingly demolished the arguments put forward by the Eire judges who argued against extradition.
The stark truth is that Dublin refuses to return fugitive offenders on the basis that their crimes were political or politically motivated. As a result, extradition has been a one-way traffic, with Britain fulfilling its part as a responsible, friendly neighbour and with the Irish Republic, while expressing grief at the obscene crimes committed by the terrorists, regretting that it cannot extradite the criminals.
Despite the so-called IRA cease-fire, the catalogue of deaths, unfortunately, continues unabated. It must be said at once that it is not all the work of the Provisional IRA. We have sectarian killings and we have internecine war scarring the face of Ulster, and all must clearly condemn any terrorist activity, whether it be by Protestant or Roman Catholic, or by Loyalist or Republican. But we must bear in mind that the Provisional IRA is still active. Its members kill and then escape across the border to sanctuary in the Republic. That is what we are up against in Northern Ireland. That is what the security forces have to face in dealing with these men.
A constituent of mine was murdered only a few weeks ago. He and two companions, after coming from a dog show in Cork, were killed as they entered Northern Ireland. They were innocent men and were not connected with any political organisation. My own cousin, living a few miles from the border in Fermanagh,

had a bomb planted at his bungalow, which was partially demolished. He had a miraculous escape, but, unfortunately, his wife was killed. She was an innocent woman, with no ill will towards any person, yet she was a victim of members of the Provisional IRA who came across the border and sped back again to the hell holes along the border. I say "hell holes", because the people who practise these atrocities are living in a hell even though they may not realise it. They go across the border to Dundalk and other places in the Republic knowing that they can relax there in perfect safety and engage in the training which will enable them to carry out further atrocities in Northern Ireland. That is why extradition is urgently necessary.
As I said to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when I intervened in his speech, this measure is a very poor second-best which protects persons who have committed acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland, and escaped to the Republic. They cannot be brought before the courts as envisaged under this legislation, and in my judgement this is a serious defect.
There is a remarkable mood sweeping through Northern Ireland. Although the majority may feel anger at the killing, for example, of a Protestant, that anger is not directed towards the religious minority. That is a radical change. Unfortunately, sectarian killings, allegedly in retaliation, do not help the situation. But there is this change of atmosphere, and the great majority of people in Northern Ireland are now getting together—I should like to see them acting in better unison—and facing the terrorists who are destroying the Province.
I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree, however, that at least it can be said that the Protestant terrorists are pursued relentlessly and brought to trial in Northern Ireland. In the case of IRA members, they can—and many do—seek sanctuary in the Irish Republic. That is a serious weakness when the great majority of people in Northern Ireland want peace, and want the terrorists brought to justice.
With this new attitude and new atmosphere in Northern Ireland, it is sad that the Government here did not hold out for extradition when it was argued for


so forcefully by our judges who sat on the Law Enforcement Commission. It is sad, too, that the Eire Government did not agree to extradite these fugitive offenders. The Eire authorities can argue, and have argued vehemently, that persons sought for political offences should not be extradited, the reason being that they should not be tried and sentenced for offences connected with politics, but it is nonsense, while holding this view and rejecting extradition, to enunciate the principles and practices set out in the Bill and the reciprocal Bill before the Irish Dail and Senate. For the whole point of extradition and of this extra-territorial legislation is the same—the apprehension and the imprisonment, if found guilty, of the fugitive political offender.
That is the reality, and the British judges on the Law Enforcement Commission stated this in their argument for extradition. Therefore, I cannot see how the Eire authorities can say, "We will not extradite persons because of political offences" when they actually intend, under this legislation, to try such persons before their courts for political offences, or what they say are political offences—although I do not regard them as such.
I would like briefly to refer to the report of the Law Enforcement Commission and the statement made by the British judges in support of extradition. They said:
One looks in vain for any principle or practice under which, while denying the propriety of extradition, a state claims the right to prosecute fugitive political offenders within its territory".
Again, they said:
We think that the argument against the use of the extradition method is misconceived … the two Governments having agreed that persons committing crimes of violence, however motivated, in any part of Ireland should be brought to trial, there is no room for immunity on the ground that the offence is political.
Of course, the Eire politicians received support for their stand from the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he created the special status of "political prisoner". That was a foolhardy decision, and an abject capitulation to terrorism, and this Government must be experiencing grave difficulty in getting rid of the status as recommended by the Gardner Report. It was a grave mistake, and it is a millstone round our necks.

I cannot forgive the right hon. Gentleman for creating that status, which is now enjoyed even by the Price sisters after their murderous campaign in England.
The previous Eire Government—the Fianna Fail Government—however, were not disposed to face up to their responsibility, and their attitude has not changed, as is witnessed by their attacks, in the Senate, on the reciprocal Eire legislation. Will it be possible, under this and the Eire legislation, to ensure—I hope that it will be possible, and I direct my remarks to the Attorney-General—that there will be no unreasonable disparity of sentence between the Ulster and Eire courts? Nothing would help more to bring the law into disrepute than for widely differing sentences to be imposed, thereby creating a feeling of injustice. I wonder how this can be done, since even in this country there is some disparity between sentences.

The Attorney-General: Since the hon. Gentleman directs his remarks to me, I would say that of course the two Bills seek together to ensure that the maximum penalties for the same offence will be the same. But any hon. Member of this House would agree with me that there is one vital safeguard for the courts—whether here or there, there must be the independence of the judiciary. We cannot possibly ensure that the courts of one country, or, as the hon. Gentleman has himself said, one judge, as against another, will always have the same standard.

Mr. Kilfedder: I agree with what the Attorney-General has said about the independence of the judiciary, but I regret to say that sentences which have been meted out to persons who have appeared before the Eire courts for terrorist offences have not matched sentences imposed by courts in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and it would be totally unfair—I think, anyhow, and I am looking at this as a lawyer—for a person to receive a lighter or heavier sentence merely because he had the good or ill fortune to appear in one country rather than another. That is the point that I am making.
I end with two brief points. I believe that this Bill will be a lawyers' paradise. In the Irish Republic the constitutionalists will have a field day. I do not know


about the possible situation in Northern Ireland itself, but it will be some time before anyone is finally put behind bars, having gone through all the various appellate courts in Eire.
As far as I am concerned, this measure is second best, but at least if it means the conviction of terrorists in the Irish Republic, if it saves just one life, it will have accomplished something—and it is on that basis that I support the Bill.

6.16 p.m.

Sir Michael Havers: I do not think anybody in the House would have any doubt that in reality this Bill is second best—and it is second best because there has clearly been a lack of political agreement with the Irish Republic as to what should be done. But we have now to face up to the political reality, and if we cannot get the best, which clearly would be the simplest, most practical solution of having a mutual extradition agreement with the Republic, we must accept what we can get if that goes at least some way to achieving the purpose we all want to achieve.
Extradition would be best, and I agree with the views expressed by many hon. Members supporting the case argued by the British judges in the commission. I rely particularly on the passage which speaks of the exception, where the enormity or barbarism of the crime justifies an exception. It has always seemed to me very difficult to accept that a man who puts a bomb in a crowded public-house filled with young soldiers and Army girls, intending that as many as possible should be killed or maimed, should, if he escapes to the Republic, be able to say "Oh, yes I intended to do that, but of course it was a political act."
The points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir P. Rawlinson)—with all his experience—about the difficulties that would follow where witnesses in a case had gone to Dublin, are practical points. If we cannot have extradition, this is as good as we are going to get. We must bear in mind the comment of so many hon. Members on both sides of the House about the major omission with regard to those—I give the example of the Price sisters—who would have escaped if they

had not been taken off the plane, and would have been in Dublin, and for example, Liverpool people of Irish descent or Irish relationship being unwilling to go to Dublin.
I support what has been said by so many about the extension affecting those in Dublin who are not to be extradited or sent back for crimes of terrorism committed in this country, so that the judges who will try them in Southern Ireland should at least have powers equivalent to those which will give under the Bill to the judges in Northern Ireland.
When I intervened on this point in the speech of the Secretary of State the right hon. Gentleman said that this would require many alterations to our law because of the "no jury" trial, and the rest. I do not accept that, because it is a one-way traffic. If a bomber blows up a pub in Dublin and comes here, we always allow him to be extradited. It is only when it is the other way round that difficulty will occur. We cannot go on relying upon public restraint. We cannot expect the public to maintain the restraint that has been shown—with a temporary fracture after Birmingham—particularly in London and Guildford, if this kind of thing goes on and the perpetrators of crimes escape to Dublin.
Those who commit these horrible and abnormal crimes should be brought to justice. I believe that the public demand that. They demand that they should be brought to justice, if the Governments of the two countries cannot agree to mutual extradition, at least by making available to the judges in Dublin all of the evidence that would be available if such people were tried here, without involving those many witnesses, such as scientific officers, who would be required to go to Dublin. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell gave graphic examples of the numbers of witnesses who would be needed.
It does not seem beyond the limits of credulity that this extension, even if only one-way, should be made to cover those offences in Great Britain when the offenders are in Dublin—

Mr. W. T. Williams: I appreciate the importance of the point which the hon. and learned Member is


making. Would he, in turn, offer to the House some suggestion whereby it would be possible under British law to make available in Southern Ireland the statements of witnesses bearing in mind the difficulty that all trials in Britain are jury trials and such statements would not have been taken here before a judge and jury? How does he overcome the difficult constitutional problems involved?

Sir M. Havers: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am not sure that he has a valid point. I do not think that he has been present throughout the whole debate. What I am seeking to suggest is that the reciprocal provisions contemplated in the Bill between the Republic and Northern Ireland with regard to the court of trial, the court in whose country the offender is, should be extended when the offender has committed a crime in Great Britain and is not to be returned to Great Britain because of the present restrictions, because of a political connection. Such a person will then be tried in Dublin. We ought to provide in Great Britain the same facilities to the court in the Republic as will be provided in Northern Ireland in similar circumstances.

The Attorney-General: I want to be clear what the hon. and learned Member is suggesting. I am sure he does not mean this, but it sounded as though he was saying that all of this would be done simply by adding to our Bill. I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Member dissents from that. It is right to make it clear that that is not so.

Sir M. Havers: The right hon. and learned Member interrupted me before I had completed. I was about to finish by saying that we invite the Attorney-General to initiate discussions with his opposite number in the Republic to see whether the Republic will also make similar provisions. This cannot be done unilaterally. It requires the agreement of both sides. I accept that political reality is often a long way from what we would wish. It is important to remember that public restraint, which has been so much evident, cannot be relied upon for ever.
I hope that the Attorney-General will at least keep open those options and see

whether an extension can be agreed by the Eire Government. It does not seem to be a politically serious move for them. There might be objection by a number of those who feel that this is going too far in association with Ireland. I do not believe that. It certainly would not affect our system of justice in the way the Secretary of State suggested when I intervened because it would merely require those available to attend and give evidence in the circumstances contemplated by the Bill in the Ulster situation.
I want also to touch upon the question of retrospection which was raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Mr. Lee). Retrospection has always been treated, particularly by lawyers in this place, as being offensive when it makes illegal an act which at the time it was done was legal. That situation would not arise here. The act would have been illegal at all times. The issue that arises is whether, the act having been committed, the offender is in a country which is treating political connections as being a sufficient reason, however barbarous the crime, to resist returning him to the country where the crime was committed. It is not an ordinary case of retrospection. It is a case where in our view, the crime having been committed, the offender remains the offender thereafter. It is only because of a political view that is taken that he is not returned to the country where he committed the crime. Retrospection in the true sense does not apply.
I invite the Attorney-General to consider this before Committee stage and to discuss it again with his opposite number in the Republic. It seems wrong and offensive that those who have committed the offence and benefited by the strict interpretation—if I may put it that way—of the Backing of Warrants Act, should be able to remain at liberty in the Republic, untouched for crimes committed in this country and in Northern Ireland before the Bill receives the Royal Assent although in reality they are continuing offenders, not having been brought to justice.
Apart from those comments and apart from echoing the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, I welcome the Bill and wish it a speedy passage.

6.37 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): It is a matter for gratification that there has been a general welcome for this Bill, however much it may have been described as second best—as we accept it must necessarily be. When the promotion of legislation or anything else depends upon more than one party we have a situation in which it may be necessary to accept second best, because it is not possible to get agreement on the best. But it is not merely that factor which affects the decision of the Government to promote this legislation.
The Sunningdale communiqué, which I should say was concerned with violence in Ireland—at that time we had not experienced the Birmingham bombings, and so on—charged the British and Irish Governments jointly with setting up a commission to recommend, as a matter of extreme urgency, the most effective means of dealing with those who commit crimes, whether in the North or South of Ireland. It is this with which the Bill is concerned.
Difficult as was the task given to the commission, and I am sure that hon. Members would wish to thank its members for their clear and comprehensive report, it was concerned to take note of and give accord to the urgency. What we have to consider when talking about the possibility of improvements and extensions, particularly as a result of matters which have come to the fore since the Sunningdale conference and since the Commission was established and reported, is the balance between getting on with legislation with the degree of urgency thought to be right, and seeking to alter it, which would mean further discussion and agreement or disagreement between the parties concerned.
I shall say more about the specific question of Great Britain later. I hope that all hon. Members will bear in mind that that is a highly important factor. I am sure that they all wish to see this legislation—which was described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as the twin legislation in the Republic—on the statute book as rapidly as possible.
It has been said in criticism of the Bill that extradition would be much better. All hon. Members would agree that in

the many cases which arise out of this legislation it would be preferable if both we ourselves and the Government of the Republic took precisely the same view about extradition. However, unhappily, that is not the case. Unhappily, the members of the commission from the Republic—which included two judges whose charge it would be to put into effect the law of the Republic of Ireland as they know it—took a view different from our own. I do not suggest for one moment that the view which was taken by our judges, which corresponds to the way in which we interpret the saving of political offences from extradition, is a wrong view. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) wanted me to associate my legal opinion with theirs. Of course, I would not dissociate my legal opinion from theirs, but I hope that the hon. Member and the House will understand that the matter is not merely between this country's Judiciary and the Republic's Judiciary, because differences exist on this very question of the political exception to extradition in other countries also.
In view of some of the remarks that have been made, I must point out that we are not providing an alternative to extradition processes which already exist. We are providing an additional process and an additional means of bringing offenders to justice.

Mr. McCusker: I wish to raise a point which is really an extension of the point that I put to the Secretary of State. Does what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said mean that if those fugitives, currently in the Republic, who have escaped extradition, were apprehended in Northern Ireland, they would still be brought to justice? Could their sworn statements in the Republic be used to convict them?

The Attorney-General: If persons have committed offences against our law in the past, we are, and always have been, entitled to apply for their extradition. If extradition were granted they would return and we would try them. The Bill recognises what the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) referred to as the political realities, and one includes in those realities the fact that judges in the Republic have committed themselves to a particular view which


they would no doubt give effect to in the courts. In the light of that we are providing an additional means of bringing people to justice. If the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) is saying "You should provide it in relation to those who have committed offences or who are alleged to have committed offences in the past", that is to say, that there should be retrospection—a matter to which the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon referred—what is happening in law is that new offences are being created by the two Bills in the two countries, and therefore—

Mr. McCusker: Why?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman asks "Why?" That is how the legislation operates. Matters which were not offences in the countries concerned will now be offences, as a result of this legislation. There may, of course, be times when it is right to consider whether, even so, retrospection is justified, but I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon—who, I know, thinks very deeply about these matters—will agree that one should hesitate for a long time before accepting the principle that one is entitled, because one knows that someone who has committed an offence in another country is present in one's own country, so to legislate to enable that person to be tried in one's own country for that offence, although one could not do so before the legislation was enacted. It is a very serious new principle, and I suggest to the House that we should consider its implications very carefully and for a long time before we accept that it is right.

Mr. McCusker: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood me. In years to come there is a strong possibility that some of those people who have been guilty, or who may be guilty, of offences will return to the North to visit their families, and so on. If they are apprehended in the North, shall we be able to bring them to justice there?

The Attorney-General: I am sorry; I did not fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course, anyone who has committed an offence in Northern Ire-

land may go on a world tour and eventually come back to Northern Ireland, and the courts of Northern Ireland will be able to deal with him in the ordinary way. We do not require this Bill to ensure that that objective is secured. The Bill is required because there are many people who dodge across the land borders, which we know is only too easy to do. Indeed, that is one of the distinctions between the North and South of Ireland, as opposed to Great Britain and Ireland. That fact has to be taken into consideration when considering the extent to which the provisions of the Bill should be extended. I shall deal with that matter now, because in my view it is probably the main additional point of principle which has arisen out of a number of the speeches that have been made.
Many questions have been levelled at me on matters of detail. I hope that if I do not answer each one of them, those hon. Members who have asked me about particular points will accept that they are matters of detail which can be dealt with in Committee. However, I shall look through the Official Report of the debate and do my best to ensure that any point that has not been adequately answered receives an answer.
I come then to the question of the extension of the provisions of the Bill to offences committed in Great Britain. Although the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon put the point in a particularly clear way, it did not seem to me that all hon. Members had achieved quite the same clarity of understanding of the question. If we are dealing with crimes committed here—with the type of crime exemplified by the reference to the Birmingham bombers, the Price sisters, and so on—and with people who have slipped through the net, notwithstanding the controls at the ports, airfields and so on, and have reached the South, we are dealing with people who are subject to the law of the Republic rather than the law of this country. Therefore, when hon. Members speak in general terms about that situation, what is being asked for is not amendment to our law but amendment to the law of the South. We should have to ensure that the Republic was prepared either to amend its existing Bill or to introduce new legislation to cover that gap in the protection which we seek to give.
I entirely take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point that we might be able to help matters if we inserted into our Bill, in advance, a provision whereby, in the event of the South's being willing to go that far, there were, ready-made, the commission system, and so on, but until we have reached agreement on that—if we should reach agreement—it would be premature and, indeed, unnecessary to insert such a provision, because there would have to be many amendments to our legislation, apart from those to introduce the system into this Bill. It is better to keep the Bill, complex as it is, as simple as we can, and get it through as quickly as possible, rather than complicate it still further by inserting, in anticipation, something which may be and remain otiose.
I am asked whether we have sought to persuade the Irish Government to agree to that much broader extension—an extension that was not contemplated by Sunningdale, as I have explained by quoting a passage from the communiqué. All that I want to say about that is that my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have had discussions with Mr. Cooney on a wide range of issues, and I have no doubt that if the Government felt that circumstances were such that that sort of extension was desirable or essential discussions on it would follow. We should no doubt see whether the Irish felt that that degree of extension of their legislation as well as of ours, might be put into effect. But at present there is no agreement about that. There is agreement about this Bill, and I suggest that we should get on with the Bill as fast as we can.

Sir M. Havers: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give his opinion on the question whether an amendment on those lines, if the House accepted it, would be helpful or harmful in any negotiations with the Republic?

The Attorney-General: I have not taken part in negotiations. It is not part of my duties to do so, so far, at any rate. But I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman received his answer indirctly if he was watching my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has been involved and who plainly feels that such an amendment

would be harmful rather than beneficial. It is a matter on which I am willing to accept the benefit of my right hon. Friend's experience and knowledge.
What must be made clear—I hope that I have made it clear—is that it is not enough to say "Let's extend the Bill". "Let's put more into it." That would be totally ineffective without the agreement of the Republic and without the Republic's promoting a new Bill—the House has heard that the Republic has not been without difficulty in promoting the twin of the present Bill—or trying to amend the twin of this Bill, when I have no doubt that the same difficulties would arise.
We have tried to go as far as we can in this direction. The Republic has gone some way by the amendment of its own law of extra-territoriality in relation to homicide, and both countries are going further in relation to explosive offences, which are being made extra-territorial in both countries, subject to certain necessary limitations.
Therefore, the House must accept that at least we are dealing with the major types of violence to which, unhappily, we have become accustomed here and in Northern Ireland and in the South—not only murder but explosive offences, offences involving a high level of violence. I do not believe, and the Government do not believe, that one can at this stage go any further than that.
I am glad to note that no voice has been raised to suggest that the Bill is not essential. It will certainly help, even if it may not help as much as many of us would have wished. I hope that the general support which has been given to it in principle will also be shown when it reaches its later stages, because the most important thing of all is to get it on to the statute book as rapidly as possible. Let us by all means set an example, if that is the right word, to those in another part of the world, so that both countries get their legislation on to the statute book at the same time, and we then go forward and operate it.

Question put and agreed to

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

SAFETY OF SPORTS GROUNDS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

6.49 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I scarcely need to remind the House that in January last year a Bill of the same title was read a Second time. That Bill duly completed the Committee stage but was lost when Parliament was dissolved in February 1974. A similar Bill was introduced in another place last July, but did not proceed further as a dissolution again intervened. The provisions of the present Bill are substantially the same as those of its predecessors, although it naturally incorporates improvements made by this House and in another place, as well as some drafting changes.
It follows that the House will be familiar with the Bill and, indeed, I apologise for intervening in the rather cosy familiarity that there will be between those who will take part in this debate, because the Bill is not primarily my departmental responsibility. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is primarily responsible for it but unfortunately she is not here.
The purpose of the Bill is to implement the main recommendations contained in the Report of the Inquiry into Crowd Safety at Sports Grounds. This report was prepared by Lord Wheatley who undertook his inquiry, at the then Government's request, following the tragedy at Ibrox Park football ground in January, 1971, when 66 people died and over 140 were injured.
Lord Wheatley had no doubt that present controls over safety at football grounds were inadequate. He found that the existing voluntary system of certification of grounds introduced by the Football Association some years ago laid down no requirements as to the competence of persons who carry out the annual inspections of grounds, and there were no guidelines to assist those persons in their assessment of safety standards.
Moreover, a review of the statutory provisions relevant to the safety of spectators at football grounds convinced Lord Wheatley that the law also fell short of providing proper and effective control over football grounds as a whole. The building regulations, for example, provide for the basic structural safety of new buildings within a football ground, but they do not apply to existing buildings, except where alterations are to be carried out. Nor do they apply to a ground as a whole. In any case, most football grounds were built before national building regulations were introduced.
Lord Wheatley, therefore, concluded that only a specially devised statutory scheme could ensure comprehensive controls at football grounds in the interests of safety. He recommended a statutory licensing control administered by the "top tier" of local authorities. He proposed that these controls should be introduced by stages, the larger or more important grounds, broadly speaking, being dealt with first. Lord Wheatley also recommended that there should be a right of appeal for the clubs concerned against any decision of the licensing authority.
What is quite clear throughout the report is Lord Wheatley's awareness of the need to reconcile the paramount aim of ensuring the safety of spectators with what is reasonable and practicable for the clubs. It is that important principle which animates the Bill.
Lord Wheatley also provided, as a technical appendix to his report, guidelines to safety standards at football grounds resigned to assist the local authorities in their task of enforcement.
When the report was published, those bodies mainly concerned, including the local authority associations and the football authorities, were consulted about Lord Wheatley's proposals. The football authorities made it clear that they were apprehensive at the financial implications for the clubs, but there was general agreement with the proposals themselves. Detailed consultations were held on the guidelines contained in the technical appendix to the report and these, duly amended, were finally published by the Home Department in November 1973 as


a special booklet, "Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds".
The Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds has no statutory force. Its primary purpose is to set out principles or guidelines which the local authorities will no doubt wish to keep in mind in enforcing the Bill. The guide, therefore, deals with matters such as the provision of adequate entrances and exits, means of escape, the slope of terracing, the strength and siting of crush barriers, the construction of staircases, and measures to ensure the safe movement of spectators both under normal and emergency conditions.
However, I emphasise that the guide is not a set of requirements to be rigidly applied, regardless of individual circumstances. This has most important implications for the clubs and the financial consequences of implementing the Bill.
As Lord Wheatley recognised, it is important to maintain the maximum flexibility in any system of control so as to take account of the differing circumstances at individual grounds—factors such as age, size and mode of construction differ widely from ground to ground. All these factors would have to be taken into account by the local authority when it issued its safety certificate and set out the conditions on which the certificate would be issued.
Although the basic principle set out in the guide are relevant to all sports stadia, modifications may well be necessary where sports other than football are involved. These could be discussed with the appropriate authorities at the time.
Lord Wheatley recommended that the introduction of any system of control should be phased so that the more important grounds, regularly attracting the larger attendances, should be dealt with first. It is intended, accordingly, that only those grounds in Lord Wheatley's category 1, which are mentioned on page 14 of the report, should be dealt with first, that is to say, the international grounds, the English First and Second Divisions and the Scottish First Division Clubs, which in all amount to fewer than 70. Indeed, with the proposed introduction of a Premier Division of 10 teams in the Scottish League, the total number of grounds affected will be about 60, as only

the Premier Division will be covered in the first designating order so far as Scotland is concerned.
Grounds in Lord Wheatley's categories 2 and 3 will be dealt with later as the need arises. But the full system of control under the Bill will not apply to Lord Wheatley's category 4, namely, grounds with accommodation for fewer than 10,000 spectators. The intention is that safety at these grounds should be secured largely by voluntary action on the part of the club concerned in consultation with the local authority.
The main instrument of control under the Bill is the safety certificate issued by the local authority. A safety certificate will be needed in respect of every stadium which is the subject of a designation order made by the Secretary of State. The certificate will enable the local authority to impose such terms and conditions as are necessary to ensure a reasonable standard of safety at the ground in question having regard to the circumstances.
The Bill has been designed with football stadia chiefly in view. But other stadia, if necessary, can be brought within the system of local authority control as well as places such as racecourses where large numbers of spectators may be crowded together in stands. Nothing would be done, however, without full and prior consultation with those concerned.
I therefore, turn to describe the main provisions of the Bill in a little more detail, and I shall mention the principal changes which have been made since the House considered the previous Bill. The first five clauses establish the main system of control under the Bill, that is to say, the safety certificate, issued by the local authority, which will be required for every sports stadium designated for that purpose by order of the Secretary of State. The House will probably have noticed that, although the substance is unchanged, the relevant clauses of the earlier Bill have been rearranged and reshaped in the interests of clarity.
Clause 1 empowers the Secretary of State by order to designate any sports stadium having accommodation for more than 10,000 spectators as requiring a safety certificate. A safety certificate is


issued by the local authority for the area in which the stadium is situated, that is to say, the county council in England and Wales and the appropriate regional or islands council in Scotland. Safety certificates are to be of two kinds, general and special. A general safety certificate will be the main continuing form of control and will be issued for an indefinite period in respect of a specified activity or activities regularly taking place at the stadium.
A special safety certificate may be issued at the discretion of the local authority for a special event or other circumstances not covered by the general safety certificate. Such an event might be an evangelistic rally which might call for special arrangements if, for example, seating were provided for the congregation on the playing area. I have in mind what happens at Twickenham when a certain evangelical sect uses it each year.
The contents of safety certificates are dealt with in Clause 2. The local authority is empowered to include in the certificate such terms and conditions as are necessary to secure, at the stadium in question, a reasonable degree of safety. Without prejudice to this general power, the clause requires certificates to contain terms and conditions relating to major matters such as entrances and exits, means of escape in an emergency, the number, strength and situation of crush barriers, and the maximum number of spectators who may be admitted to the stadium or any part of it. To remove any possibility of doubt, a new subsection in the clause makes it clear that a certificate may include a condition relating to the keeping of records relating to attendance and the maintenance of safety.
In imposing conditions, local authorities will doubtless follow the principles set out in the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds, although, as I have already explained, this document has no statutory force. We envisage that there will be a good deal of consultation between the local authority and the club in the process of drawing up the certificate conditions.
For example, if a ground is rarely filled to capacity, the local authority is free in such a case to base its requirements on an attendance figure lower than the maximum the stadium would hold. On the rare occasions that a capacity crowd was

expected, the procedure of the special safety certificate could be invoked so that more than the normal permitted number of spectators might be admitted subject to special additional safeguards such as more attendants, admission by ticket only, and so on.
Again, if a stand were found to be structurally weak, the local authority might restrict admission to it until it had been strengthened. But the club would have the choice whether to have the necessary remedial works carried out, so that the restriction could be removed, or to accept the restriction indefinitely.
I emphasise this point because in earlier discussions of the Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) chilled the house with the cost of implementing the Bill for one of the Sheffield clubs. However, on inspection of the estimate he was using, it was found that the estimate included replacing a wooden stand by a brand new structure, and that the stand could well be equipped to meet the provisos of the guide without in any way being replaced as a whole. Thus it was found that the cost was very much less than had been suggested by the consultants who put together the estimate. Therefore, the point is well worth stressing in relation to the fears of the clubs.
The earlier Bill limited the terms and conditions imposed under a safety certificate to what was necessary to secure a reasonable degree of safety for members of the public. There was some difficulty over this term because it might have excluded, for example, members of supporters' clubs. This particular problem has been met by the definition of "spectator" in Clause 16, that is to say, any person occupying accommodation provided for spectators. On the other hand, it seems right that all the people present on the occasion of a match or other activity for which a ground has a certificate should be taken into account for the purposes of the safety certificate—for example, people using a squash court or other facilities at the ground.
Accordingly, the general power of the local authority under Clause 2(1) to include in a safety certificate such terms or conditions as are necessary omits any reference to people and speaks only of securing "reasonable safety at the stadium", although the term "safety",


as defined in Clause 16, does not include danger arising from participation in a sport. In these days of aggressive football, perhaps that is just as well.
Certain provisions must, however, be specifically linked with spectators who are, after all, the people the Bill is mainly designed to protect and who will be greatly in the majority. Thus Clause 2(2) requires the certificate to state the maximum number of spectators who may be admitted, and it is a serious offence, under Clause 12(1)(a) or (c) for spectators to be admitted to a designated stadium where no safety certificate is in operation.
Clause 3 sets out the broad procedure to be followed when a local authority receives an application for a safety certificate. It requires them to determine first whether an applicant is, in their opinion, a qualified person, that is to say, a person likely to be in a position to prevent contravention of the terms and conditions imposed in the certificate.
In this respect, the general safety certificate is different from the fire certificate issued under the Fire Precautions Act 1971. The latter is issued only after necessary safety works have been completed. The safety certificate under this Bill will be issued almost from the outset and will be an instrument of continuing control. The issue of a special safety certificate, however, is left to the discretion of the local authority, as I have already explained, because only the authority can judge whether it is appropriate to issue it for the special occasion in question.
The local authority is required to send a copy of any application for a certificate to the police and to the building authority, and must consult them about the terms and conditions to be included in the certificate. The need for such consultation is, I think, self-evident. There must be close co-ordination of the interests of the different authorities directly concerned with different aspects of safety at football grounds.
The original Bill, and this Bill when introduced in another place, required the local authority also to consult the fire authority. This reference survived from the period before the reorganisation of local government when there were one or two combined fire authorities. There are now no combined fire authorities,

and as the local authorities under the Bill will themselves be the fire authorities, the reference to the fire authority is superfluous.
Clause 4 provides for the amendment, replacement, transfer, surrender and cancellation of safety certificates.
Clause 5 provides for appeals by interested parties against decisions or requirements of the local authority in connection with safety certificates. Appeals will lie to the Secretary of State. In this respect, we have departed from Lord Wheatley's proposal that appeals should be heard by a specially constituted tribunal. But apart from the need to avoid creating more special tribunals than necessary, most appeals are likely to be on technical matters and it therefore seems appropriate for appeals to be heard by the Minister. In any case, he will have power to set up a formal inquiry along the lines recommended by Lord Wheatley, should the need arise.
Clause 7 provides for some supplementary matters on determinations and appeals.
The holder of a general safety certificate is required by Clause 8 to notify the local authority of any proposed alteration or extension of a stadium.
Clause 9 provides for the harmonisation of the Bill with other legislation which may affect sports stadia.
Clause 10 is an important emergency power. Should a magistrates' court, or the sheriff court in Scotland, on the application of a local authority, consider that the risk to spectators at any sports ground is so great that their admission should be prohibited or restricted until remedial action has been taken, the court may make an order accordingly. This power applies to any sports ground whether or not it is required to have a safety certificate. In practice, it is not expected that the power will often need to be exercised. In the case of a small football stadium, for example, not subject to the designation order procedure, consultations between the local authority and the club concerned are expected to secure the provision of a reasonable standard of safety on a voluntary basis. This clause is differently drafted from the analogous clause in the original Bill, chiefly in the interests of clarity, but the substance is unchanged.
Clause 11 confers rights of entry and inspection on persons appointed by the local authority. Clause 12 deals with offences and penalties.
The Secretary of State is empowered by Clause 14 to extend to classes of sports grounds other than sports stadia such provisions of the Bill as are not already expressed to apply to them. For example, it enables the Secretary of State by order to extend the safety certificate procedure to such places as race-courses.
Clause 15 applies the Bill, with necessary modifications, to the Crown. Clause 16 deals with interpretation.
Clause 17 is the order-making power.
A good deal of concern has been expressed about the ability of the football clubs to meet the costs of essential improvements likely to be required under the Bill. I understand that this was the major source of contention on earlier discussions about the Bill. The Government are well aware of the financial difficulties faced by most, if not all, professional clubs and have therefore been giving most careful thought to this problem.
It is a long-established principle that those who in the course of a commercial enterprise put the public at risk should themselves bear the cost of any statutory safety measures which thus become necessary. The Government see no reason to depart from this principle in the present case. No grants or loans from public funds will therefore be made to the football clubs. The Government have, however, been considering whether there are other ways in which help may be contrived.
The financial difficulties of the clubs were kept fully in mind in the course of preparing the safety provisions of the Bill. For example, power has been taken to implement the Bill by stages, as Lord Wheatley recommended, so that only the senior clubs and international grounds will be affected by the first designation order.
The total costs cannot be determined in advance because the state of each ground will be different, but those clubs which have been following the longstanding recommendations of the Football Association on safety precautions at football grounds may be faced with comparatively little expenditure. Local

authorities, in any case, may require only what is reasonable in the circumstances of each case, and have discretion to allow any necessary work to be completed by stages subject to compensating safeguards meanwhile—for example, limitation on numbers, extra stewards and so on. In this way the costs could be spread over a considerable period. Finally, there will be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against any requirements of the local authority which are thought to be unreasonable and, in considering such appeals, the Secretary of State will certainly take the question of costs into account.
Taxation relief should also be of some help to the clubs. The total expenditure on fixed plant and machinery may be offset against taxable income in the first year. This would cover such items as sprinklers, fire alarm systems, floodlighting, removable seating and so on. Moreover, following a Government amendment at the Report stage of the last Finance Bill designed to give tax relief in respect of expenditure on structural fire precautions required by fire authorities under Section 5(4) of the Fire Precautions Act 1971, the Government announced their intention to provide a similar type of relief in respect of expenditure under the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill. The current Finance (No. 2) Bill provides accordingly in Clause 46.
Furthermore, the Government have had the football clubs very much in mind in introducing the Lotteries Bill. The proposed increases in the present limits on turnover and prize money will enable the clubs to run lotteries on a scale—yielding an estimated extra £2 million to £3 million a year—which should go a long way towards meeting any expenditure on safety precautions made necessary by the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill. It should be possible, very soon after the Lotteries Bill becomes law, for clubs to promote lotteries with a turnover of £5,000 and a maximum prize of £1,000 as against the present limits of £750 and £100 respectively. When regulations have been made and the new Bill is fully in operation, a turnover of £10,000 will be possible for lotteries run weekly.
I am aware that there is strong support for a levy on the football pools as a


means of helping the football clubs generally. But the idea of such a levy raises a number of problems—for example, the question whether other sports, including other levels of football, should benefit, whether the hypothecation involved would be acceptable and justifiable on fiscal and resource allocation grounds, and whether it is socially desirable to give the beneficiaries a vested interest in maintaining a high level of gambling. These matters need to be considered in a much wider context than the need to provide for expenditure by the clubs concerned on safety improvements made necessary by the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill.
Meanwhile, there is an urgent need for the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill, an essential safety measure, to be enacted as soon as possible. As for expenditure on safety measures to which the football clubs may thus be committed, the Lotteries Bill, in the Government's view, should provide a substantial measure of assistance. When he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport will have further information for the House.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I refer to one other matter at this stage, namely, civil liability. The Bill like its predecessors, does not mention civil liability, but it seems right that it should declare itself on this issue so as to remove any possible doubts. We propose accordingly to table an amendment for consideration at a later stage the purpose of which will be to make clear that, while nothing in the Bill itself will confer a right of action in civil proceedings for a breach of safety requirements imposed under it, existing rights of action already available to any spectator injured at a sports ground through the negligence of the occupier will remain wholly unaffected.
I hope that I have explained adequately the main provisions in the Bill. These reflect the Government's desire that the scheme of control which is envisaged should operate flexibly and reasonably having regard to the circumstances of individual clubs, while achieving a degree of safety which will considerably reduce the risk of another disaster of the kind that occurred at Ibrox Park. I commend the Bill to the House.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I welcome the Minister of State, Home Office to our sporting deliberations and thank him for explainng the Bill so carefully and helpfully. As he said, this is the third time that a Bill of this nature has come before the House. I hope that it will be third time lucky. I welcome the reappearance of the Bill which nearly became an Act of Parliament just over a year ago. It is sad that it has not been possible to push the Bill through earlier because we have now lost a summer for building improvements and there is escalation in costs.
At the outset, I emphasise, as did the Minister, that the purpose of the Bill is to improve crowd safety and not to deal with crowd behaviour, although the two are inevitably interrelated. There is little change in the Bill, and I welcome the improvements which have resulted from the consultations held by the Minister and the Minister responsible for sport, and from the Working Party on Crowd Control which he set up some time ago. A valuable addition has been made to the Bill because of the work the Minister has put into it. There are still a few amendments I should like to be incorporated, but I assure the Government that I want to see the Bill go through all its stages as soon as possible.
I believe that all the main objectives of the Wheatley Report, which followed upon the Ibrox tragedy, are included in the Bill. There is no radical departure. The more one reads the report the greater is the realisation that this great Scotsman, judge, and football enthusiast—I do not know which priority he would prefer—was absolutely right in what he recommended. His premise was simple. Previous controls, whether formal or informal, were inadequate, the law was ineffective, and this had to be put right. We are all most grateful to Lord Wheatley for the wise recommendations he made.
As the Bill has been debated before, I shall touch only on a few points. Lord Wheatley was emphatic that the licensing authorities should be the top tier—namely, the counties in England and the regions in Scotland. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)—is present, as I want to.


make a specific Scottish point. I do so as I am a little apprehensive about the workings of the Bill as it stands. Lord Wheatley felt it important—he emphasised this in his report—that we should keep licensing decisions remote from local influence. In the past, that has not been as clear-cut as we would have wished. The Bill, in various sections, makes reference to consultation with the building authority. In the major regions that will be the district authority, the lower tier. Although there must be that important consultation, I want to be assured that the driving force and the technical advice will come from the top tier.
I do not want to think that this legislation will conflict with Wheatley. I do not want to see the regions delegate their responsibility to the districts, which until recently were the cities. That is a point that I have mentioned in some detail, and it was conclusively brought out by the Minister in the letters that he wrote in February to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). His letters referred to the level of local authority responsibility for sports stadia. The Bill makes it clear that after local government reorganisation in Scotland it will be the regional councils and not the district councils which will exercise that function. I raise this matter only because I have some apprehension that already the district officials are involved in this type of work when I believe that the regions should be entirely responsible.
I know that in Committee the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will table amendments to tidy up the Bill. The references to reorganisation no longer apply.
Much of our discussion today, and much of our discussion in Committee, will revolve around the guide to safety at sports grounds, which has already been mentioned by the Minister of State, Home Office. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not a statutory document; it is merely a guide. However, it is rapidly becoming a Bible. I am already hearing of disputes between engineers and architects as to its implementation. That applies particularly to fire precautions. I am glad to have heard the Minister suggest that the guide must not be taken by the local authorities as a rigid document to be fulfilled at all costs.
As the Minister responsible for sport knows, every ground has its own characteristic. Most of our grounds were built over 50 years ago, before there were motor cars and buses to bring the spectators. The emphasis that has been placed on flexibility is most important. we must be flexible in the early stages, or the local authorities will cause immense problems for football. I would be grateful if the Minister responsible for sport would consider writing specifically to each licensing authority to emphasise that it must be flexible in its approach in the first few years. That was our intention had we been in a position to put forward such a project.
The Minister of State has spoken, rightly, about designation. The hon. Gentleman indicated the grounds that were involved. I congratulate the Government on their decision that in Scotland the first period of designation will cover only the Scottish Premier League. That will concern only the 10 senior clubs in. Scotland, allowing for promotion and relegation each year. I hope that it will not be necessary to designate the first or second division for a considerable time. Unless I misheard him, the Minister did not give any indication as to when the first designation order will be made. I realise that the clubs will want the maximum amount of time to carry out improvements. Are the Government thinking in terms of the season after next rather than the coming season, so that at least the clubs will have the next summer to make some of the essential improvements?
One observation that I make as a point of interest rather than a point of substance is that, I am told, there are 161 foootball grounds in England alone that are capable of holding over 10,000 spectators. That shows what could be done if we designated more grounds than absolutely necessary. I suppose about 80 per cent. of those clubs would be very excited if they had 10,000 spectators once in a generation.

Mr. Dan Jones: I would not encourage the hon. Gentleman to walk that path too firmly. Knowing the game as well as I do, the hon. Gentleman must keep in mind that some of the clubs which have maximum gates of 1,000 or 2,000


could have a lucky draw in the Cup and expect a crowd of 20,000, 25,000, or even 30,000.

Mr. Monro: Indeed, that is why we have the special certificate. The police and the local authorities, even at short notice, will be able to make arrangements to cover such circumstances. It is one of the exciting things in football when a lowly club has a visit from a team in the First division. We do not want to see that prevented in any way. It is right to put it on the record for confirmation, when the Minister responsible for sport makes his winding-up speech, that the Rugby League, the NGRC, and the speedway interests will not be in the first designation order.
I was glad that the Minister of State mentioned appeals. This is the only difference from Wheatley. I believe that the Government are right, as were the previous Conservative Government, in providing that appeals should go to the Secretary of State. I hope that there will be few appeals. There will be only a few if local authorities realise that they must require only what is reasonable, bearing in mind the cost and practicability of improvements. There is, of course, any amount of advice available from the CCPR, the Sports Council, and many other sporting bodies.
The Minister of State referred to costs. This has been a contentious matter among many football clubs. Over the years, many prudent clubs have made improvements which will stand them in good stead in the future, but others have waited. Their costs will be substantially higher. However, if there is the flexibility that we are all calling for they will be able to overcome that problem.
There is no question about it; we must have the Bill. In saying that, I think it right also to say that some clubs will take a good deal longer than others to fulfil the requirements that we intend to lay down in legislation, being guided by the Green Paper. We must see no slackening off in progress. We must see steady progress towards a standard that we all expect. Some grounds are well below standard. I do not want to list them today. However, it is an appropriate moment to say a few words about Hampden Park. The

effect of the Bill makes a decision on Hampden Park imperative. The Bill will probably have a greater impact on that ground than on any other major ground that we are considering in Wheatley's first category. It is our national stadium and it has a great history, but it is long out of date, despite the efforts of Queen's Park Football Club. I doubt whether it would be possible, as it now stands, for Hampden Park to pass the requirements of the Bill.
We have had an exceptional report from the Chairman of the Scottish Sports Council, Mr. Liddell, assisted by the Glasgow Corporation and the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Football League and Queen's Park Football Club. It is essential reading for everybody involved in future sports ground developments. There is now a unique chance of a new stadium, plus facilities for sports halls, and so on, in Glasgow, where those facilities are particularly required. I am totally in favour of the maxi scheme of the three alternative proposals. Anything else would be a third or fourth choice.
I appreciate that at present there are extreme restrictions on Government expenditure. The scheme will mean expenditure of the order of £16 million. Planning discussions and development of the project will be bound to take two or three years, but during that period there will be little expense. Surely this is the moment to take the right decision to bring everybody together and move towards providing this great facility of which we shall all be proud. If not, it will be an admission that the Government are concerned not only about our immediate economic situation but about the likely economic situation in two or three years' time. I believe that we must begin to plan for construction by about 1978.
I personally reaffirm my party's approach. We should play our part in providing our share of resources, together with the local authorities and football interests. Let there be no delay.
I urge Ministers to get cracking on administrative details and to follow the able lead of Mr. Siddell. Only in this way can we expect to hold world and European finals again in Glasgow. If not, I can see Scotland becoming a desert for spectators of world football.
The Minister rightly spoke about the financing of improvements. I cannot resist poking a small piece of fun at the Minister responsible for sport. In his Second Reading of the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill on 18th January 1974, he insisted that we should have to find out how much the costs would be. He said:
A few weeks ago I asked the Minister whether the Government … had made any estimate of the costs that would be involved. I wanted to know whether they had made any calculation of the costs to football, rugby league or rugby union."—[Official Report, 18th January 1974; Vol. 867, c. 1096–7.]
I tabled a Question last December, when the Bill went to another place. I asked the Minister whether he could give me the information, but the Question was transferred to the Home Office. Consequently, the answer was given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, to the effect that no precise estimate was possible. She said that much would depend on the state of each ground and on the decision of local authorities, in consultation with the clubs concerned, about safety requirements which were reasonable in all the circumstances. It was not possible to give any firm indication of what the cost would be.
Since the Second Reading of that legislation in January last year we have had to face a deterioration in our economic situation and an enormous escalation in building costs, which will have a dramatic effect on clubs' estimates of improvements—over and above other costs such as rates and normal club expenses, which are not my concern today.
I am glad that the Government have made a concession in Clause 46 of the Finance Bill. At one point I wondered whether the Minister would consider back-dating some of the improvements, but I realise that that would not be possible. The effect of Clause 46 will be dramatic only if football clubs have profits to set against these provisions. The effects of the clause will have no immediate impact, nor am I as optimistic as the Minister on the question of lotteries. In an early morning debate on the Lotteries Bill I asked the Minister what the impact would be on football. She replied:
We have received word that many sports clubs welcome the Bill and feel that it will be

of great help to them. The Football League clubs have estimated that they will get an additional income of £2 million a year."—[Official Report, 30th April 1975; Vol. 891, c. 666.]
I find it hard to substantiate that figure and should like to know how much of it can be translated into improvements at sports grounds. However, it may be a step in the right direction.
Lord Harris, speaking in another place on 19th November—as reported in the Official Report, House of Lords, in column 987—gave a hint of a levy on football pools. I appreciate the difficulties and I understand the Minister's remarks today, but the Minister also hinted that his hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport had one or two more goodies up his sleeve for the reply. It would assist us to know whether further substantial help is on the way.
I understand that in the circumstances it would be wrong to expect other financial concessions than those which the Minister has announced today.
I conclude by saying a few words on the interrelated question of crowd behaviour. It is not often that many of us become personally involved in these matters. In January I travelled on a train that had been completely vandalised by football supporters a day or two earlier. Their motive for inflicting that damage was difficult to understand. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane), who has wide experience of sport, will discuss the general problem in a little more detail if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye a little later. Throughout my time as Shadow Minister of Sport I advocated the strongest possible action by magistrates to back up the police. Where this fails we must accept that however serious and unfortunate it may be for certain clubs, they will have to face national and international sanctions until the small minority of their supporters see reason. It is for the clubs to face these responsibilities.
In the last six months—particularly in the last week, with the Prudential Cup—in both cricket and rugby matches we have seen enormous emotional excitement, and yet the crowds have been well-behaved and have not run into the sort of difficulties which we have seen in certain football grounds. That is a standard to


which we must try to aspire in all our sports. grounds in Britain.
In my comments on football problems I do not hesitate to say that the attitude of players on and off the field certainly has an influence. It is always easy to find excuses for players, but the game is far bigger than the players. I hope that the House will call for and hope to see a marked trend for the better. If most clubs set an admirable standard, it should be possible for all.
Finally, I should like to say a word or two about the police. It would be wrong not to pay them a high tribute for all they do in sport. They are employed on, and, indeed, paid for, work inside the grounds to maintain law and order. This has stood the test of time. Their duties do not supplement or replace those of stewards employed by the club for general arrangement within the ground. That is the responsibility of management. The police are responsible for crowd safety, while the club is responsible for crowd behaviour. No report over the past 30 years has suggested otherwise. I am glad that the police will be closely involved with the advice to local authorities about licences and special certificates.
I have had a great deal of correspondence with the National Union of Supporters Clubs. Obviously it has put a great deal of work into its advocacy of a system of identity cards. The Minister will know the issues. I believe that the system would be too complicated to work quickly enough before a match starts and would produce congestion at the turnstiles. I should be interested to know the view of the Minister on the policy proposed by the association.
The Opposition will have few points to raise in Committee. All in all, this is a good and essential Bill. It is one on which we wish to co-operate. We must ensure that the local authorities do their part and act in a sensible, reasonable and flexible way.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Dan Jones: I join the Minister of State and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) in supporting this Bill. I share their concern about the control of crowds, where tip to 70,000

people may be involved at soccer and rugby matches. I am worried about the control of hooliganism. Before we press those two points too hard, and thus, to some degree, devalue a tremendously important part of our sporting life, this much must be said. Both sports—I would not care to say which comes first and which comes second—give tremendous enjoyment to many millions of people.
When we speak about crowd control and the element of hooliganism which is unfortunately associated with it, we should not forget the other aspect, namely, the delight that these sports bring to millions of people throughout the world. Appreciation of soccer is beginning to be made manifest in the United States, where the world famous footballer, Pele, will play football for three years. I hope that the American nation will take up this sport, which is better than their so-called national sport of baseball. I shall be grateful if the Minister will make some reference to the basic social value of these games in the life of the nation.
If the Government want to see this sport develop and prosper, when the implications of the Bill are known, they should look into the question of the finance which is available. It is all very well for Members of Parliament to talk about putting these reforms into effect. The hon. Member for Dumfries said that building costs were growing. Indeed, they are astronomically high. Only a few clubs in England and Wales are paying their way. The consequence is that the means to put these desirable reforms into effect may not be forthcoming. The Minister, who has been actively engaged in this sport and has an association with the chairmen of various clubs, must know that as well as I do. As a consequence, I support the provisions of the Bill on the basis that it is necessary to effect ground control at clubs such as Burnden Park, Bolton and Ibrox.
Thousands of people are deterred from viewing these sports, especially soccer, because they are nauseated by the element of hooliganism which is associated with them. The police have an almost impossible task in trying to stop these fracas, when they cannot reach the people who start them. If the police can get to those people they will be able to nip


the trouble in the bud. However, that presupposes that the grounds are sectionalised, so that access is possible. However desirable and effective that might be, it must be paid for. That is the nub of the whole matter. I shall come to the question of payment. Sometimes I am annoyed. The most grandiloquent schemes are put forward, but no thought is given to the question who will pay for them. Unless we can settle that matter it would be better not to start the schemes at all.
The Bill says that the cost to the Government is estimated at £20,000 per annum. With inflation at its present rate, that will not be enough to pay the players, never mind effecting ground improvements. I believe that that matter should be considered.
I speak about the clubs from a practical point of view. I am a soccer enthusiast. Soccer affords me a tremendous amount of recreation. It is the one time when I can watch a game in my constituency, Burnley, and forget all my political problems and shout and bawl in the hope that Burnley will win.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I hope that my hon. Friend does not shout at the referee.

Mr. Jones: There have been occasions when I have shouted at him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame"] All right, it is a shame. But I cannot pursue that point.
I speak from a practical point of view. I know of many small clubs. It is no good talking about the elite clubs in the First Division. They could not survive without the clubs in the Second, Third and Fourth divisions and the non-league clubs, because the elite clubs obtain their players from the other clubs. Consequently, consideration must be given to the clubs in the lower divisions. Some clubs have gates totalling only 2,000 persons. When they have got through the preliminary rounds of the FA Cup they may participate in a game where the gate could be anything from 25,000 to 30.000. However, we must consider these clubs. I suggest that these people must live.
I asked who would pay. References were made to the Lotteries Bill, which is now being considered in the other place. I am not unaware of the effects

of that Bill. I have questioned the commercial managers of various clubs about the way in which they would be affected if that Bill returned to this House from the other place and became law substantially unaltered. Those managers would be reasonably satisfied. I hope that that Bill will not be substantially altered, as it could provide the means of helping the clubs to which I have referred.
I make this appeal now, and I hope that when the Bill returns to the Commons for the consideration of the Lords Amendments I shall be able to repeat it. It will be no good hon. Members wanting the reforms that the Bill we are discussing will provide and then depriving the sport of the means by which it can derive the necessary finances.
In order to illustrate the problems which exist among clubs I shall quote the example of the team in my constituency. The Minister has had an association with the club. It has been a successful team in post-war years, with gates of between 20,000 and 24,000. It takes young players, it trains them, and it supplies them to any club in the country which chooses to buy them. The club is the best training arena in the country. Even managers who want their sons to make a name in football send them to Burnley to get them trained. Having trained them to be stars of international repute we have then to sell them to survive. Survival is one thing, but survival with success is another, and the club naturally has to take account of the feelings of the spectators. They cannot be expected cheerfully to accept the fact that the stars are creamed off from our team to be sold, especially since that reduces the chances of success for the club.
Therefore, Burnley and a substantial number of similar clubs, which are perhaps not quite so successful, adopted this method of earning money. Training a youngster to become a "class" player and then getting £150,000 or £300,000 for him is a means of survival, but I do not believe it is necessarily good for the sport.
What can be done by Government agencies to help the clubs? How should a top-class sport such as football be treated? Take the example of horse-racing. I believe that soccer and rugby


are of far greater benefit to the youth of the country, bearing in mind that the youth are presenting us with very serious problems, but horse-racing is probably better supported.
What recommendations have the Government made to the Football League for improving grounds? How many clubs have implemented those recommendations, and have they been anything like a success? What account have the Government taken of the criticism of the green code? What direct help can clubs expect from the Government, notwithstanding the present economic crisis? It would be unfair and biased against soccer and rugby simply to say that they present a social problem to the authorities. The truth is that they provide a tremendous amount of entertainment for millions of people.
What has been done to encourage clubs to make their facilities generally available to the community? The question of community use of the facilities of professional clubs is very suspect. It is common knowledge that groundsmen are employed by the clubs to tend the pitch. If the public were allowed to use the facilities before the Saturday afternoon game I can imagine that this would create many difficulties. I am therefore extremely sceptical about anything that the Minister may have to say on that score. If I were a club chairman I am not sure that I would want the community to use my ground during the week.
Soccer affords a tremendous amount of therapeutic treatment for our young people, and although we complain, quite properly, about the degree of hooliganism amongst them, I fear that if this sport were to decline or were allowed to drift away through lack of financial support those problems would grow. I believe that we must have the reforms in the Bill, and all responsible people must help to give effect to them.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes: This Bill is the culmination of a long saga. I remember in January 1974, along with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), participating in the proceedings in the Standing Committee which was examining a Bill similar to that now

before us. At that time the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) called a General Election and the Bill fell by the wayside.
This Bill and its predecessor are the result of what we now glibly call the Ibrox disaster. The awesome nature of that tragedy can be gauged by the fact that no fewer than 66 people were killed and more than 140 were injured. There was a steep staircase by which people were leaving the ground. An exciting last-minute goal prompted many of the spectators suddenly to flood back in down the staircase causing this terrible tragedy. Subsequently the Wheatley Committee was established—and the hon. Member for Dumfries has spoken most eloquently about Lord Wheatley and his interest in sport, particularly soccer. His investigation started in 1971 and he reported in May 1972. He recommended a code of standards of safety which included improvements to grounds, for it was generally accepted that public safety could not be supported by voluntary action alone but needed to be backed by statutory licensing controls. The Government now accept this principle, and the Opposition accept it as well, as, 1 am sure, do the administrators of soccer and supporters generally. In that sense, therefore, I feel that some progress has been made.
The building regulations were of limited value. They tended to be patchy and outdated. Some grounds were badly out of date—relics of the Industrial Revolution and what might be called Victoriana.
In his opening remarks the Minister of State referred to the representations which had been made at one stage by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who has taken a great interest in this question of safety in sport. Referring to the stand, the wooden structure, in Sheffield, my hon. Friend envisaged its replacement. When we think of the thousands of people attending that ground, even the fire hazard alone makes one think seriously that the wooden stand should be replaced, as my hon. Friend has suggested. I do not think that the Minister of State should have dismissed it quite as lightly as he apparently did.
In football grounds and sports stadia generally the public expects better standards, and many of our grounds will need


bringing up to date in this respect. The Government are proposing a statutory licensing control. These powers would be exercised by the local authorities, the county councils, in respect of England and Wales, in consultation with the club and with the police authorities.
Perhaps the lines of demarcation have not been laid down here quite clearly enough. One could envisage disputes between these various bodies—the local authorities, the administrators of the clubs, and the police. Perhaps the Minister of State, when he replies, would let us have some further details in this respect.
The guidelines will be laid down in what has become known as the green code. This would be essentially a voluntary code, as opposed to what one could call rigid standards. But, again, I feel that there is some anomaly here concerning the interpretation of this code. To what extent is it voluntary? This could lead to a certain element of dispute. The overall objective is to bring grounds up to a decent standard.
The Minister of State has suggested this evening that any appeals procedure could be dealt with by the Minister. The significant matter here is the obvious point of delay. The existing appeals procedure in regard to the various activities of local authorities has tended to be put off for a very long time, and one would not wish the same thing to happen in respect of the appeals procedure laid down in this Bill. There might be some other authority of an independent nature that could be brought into being, outside municipal control.
The main instrument is the safety certificate which would be issued by the local authority. There would also be a special certificate for special occasions. In my own case, I would envisage, perhaps, a third round FA cup-tie in which Newport County were drawn to play against Arsenal. Another special feature—we are "bilingual", so to speak, in Newport—might be Newport rugby team playing the All Blacks. It is for this sort of reason that the special certificate would be issued.
Clause 1 refers to certificates for stadia catering for over 10,000 people. The special certificate to which I refer, for matches such as these

very keen cup-ties, where there is a lot of excitement, would be a sort of second tier. But what about the temporary stands? With the growth of the game of golf at the present time, and the putting up of stands almost overnight, I would have thought that standards of safety there are just as necessary. The same would apply to motor shows of one kind or another. Could the Minister, when he replies, tell us what sort of regulations will apply in such cases?
When considering crowd behaviour and the safety factor, Lord Wheatley, in his report spoke about undivided areas of steep terracing and inadequate and constricted exists. These features, one could say, tend to encourage misbehaviour among sporting crowds, making the task of the police force particularly difficult.
There was a certain amount of hooliganism in the season of 1973–74, and in the spring of 1974 the Minister of State brought out a report to try to deal with this situation. One of his recommendations was for so-called dry moats between the terrace and the football pitch. A second recommendation was for gates which could be used by the police or in particular emergencies. He also spoke of the erection of more crash barriers. These, one is pleased to point out, are all recommended in the green code.
One could say, then, that the clubs should get on with it. There is certainly in this respect a need for the Bill. But then we come to the jackpot question—money. The question could be posed, what help can clubs and sporting organisations expect from the Government?
I did not think that the contribution of the Minister of State was very helpful in that respect. To speak of a measure of this kind without putting forward concrete proposals is to speak of Hamlet without the Prince. I speak as Chairman of the Sports Group of the Parliamentary Labour Party. On 29th January, I led a delegation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A few days earlier, I had taken a delegation to the Home Office for the same reason—which was to urge that the Government should look into the financing of sport. The main proposal put by the delegation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was for a levy on the football pools. This we feel to be the basic need of sport. The proceeds


could be distributed to sports generally and not confined to one sport. There could also be an independant board to administer the finance.
It so happens that in March of this year I wrote to the Prime Minister, and in his reply he said that these matters were receiving serious consideration. I feel that this is the way ahead. I do not know whether it is necessary to urge my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport—I feel sure that he is already doing it—to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any way that he can to bring about a measure of this kind.
For evidence of the parlous state of sport, we need only turn to the game of rugby, at which we in Wales are so good. I have a cutting from the Western Mail of Monday of this week. It is headed:
Taxman slashes rugby profits. Great year ends just about even'.
The article is by J. B. G. Thomas, the rugby editor of the Western Mail. He writes:
Although the Welsh Rugby Union's income from matches, television fees and other sources amounted to more than £150,000 for 1974–75, profit on the year's working was less than £1,000, which indicates the growing plight of successful amateur sport. Profits would normally have exceeded £20,000, but the new Corporation Tax swallows up most of this amount.
This is the situation. The article goes on:
One expects treasurer Kenneth Harris to tell club delegates how inflation is holding up the Cardiff Arms Park national ground scheme.
That is a considerable indictment of the Government's attitude to sport. The article concludes:
Welsh rugby is in a healthy state. All it needs is for some fairy godmother to present it with £2 million to enable it to finish its Cardiff Arms Park facelift.
This is the state of a successful sport in the area of the country with which I am connected. I can well visualise the trouble that other clubs and sporting organisations are in, with all the financial and economic problems that they face.
For the Second, Third and Fourth Division clubs in the English Football League, is there any timescale laid down about when they should implement the provisions of the Bill? What about the other principal centres of sport in the country? The hon. Member for Dumfries

spoke about Hampden Park. Then there are Wimbledon, Lords, the Oval and various major race courses thoughout the country. What is the position in this Bill about those centres of sport? How do they come within its provisions? When can they expect to be affected by the Bill?
The Government could do far more than they are doing today. They should set their mind to the task of introducing a levy on football pools to put sport on a firm footing. I can assure the Minister that all the members of the group of which I am chairman are most keen that this scheme should be introduced. We shall continue to pursue it.
The Government have introduced minor tax concessions in the Finance Bill for spending on the provisions of this Bill. How far will they be backdated, bearing in mind that many clubs started to engage in activities on the provisions in this Bill when legislaton was first mooted back in 1972. Will those who engaged in efforts to improve their grounds at that early stage get these concessions?
I accept the provisions of the Bill, but I feel that the Government must do more about the financing of sport.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: I want to echo the words of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who hoped that this Bill would be third time lucky. As a keen football and sports enthusiast, I have taken a great interest in safety on sports grounds over many years.
I was astonished some years ago when a Spanish friend showed me what a new stadium was like. It was the stadium in Barcelona which can seat 120,000 people. I could not help contrasting it with some of the stadia which surround me in the Lancashire area.
It is remarkable that major disasters on sports grounds in the United Kingdom have been so few in the last 70 years, because too many of our football grounds were built in the last century, unlike that in Barcelona. They are hemmed in by tight streets. In Manchester alone, around the Manchester City football ground there are serious parking problems and safety problems which give the city council and the police quite a headache.
Many of our grounds are bottlenecks for disaster. Unfortunately, disasters occur on our sports grounds from time to time, and all too often has the finger of fate touched the ground of Glasgow Rangers. Perhaps I might give a catalogue of the disasters which have occurred. It will show the necessity for this Bill.
In 1902, Ibrox Park provided the first example of disaster on our sports grounds. The terracing collapsed during a match between Scotland and England, resulting in the death of no fewer than 25 people. In 1961, on the same ground, two people were killed when a staircase collapsed. In 1969, again on the same ground, 24 people were injured when a handrail collapsed on the same staircase. For a moment in January 1971 a stairway at that same ground, Ibrox, became virtually a tunnel of death in which 66 people were killed and 145 injured—and that has resulted in our having a fresh look at safety precautions in our grounds.
But it is not only at this one stadium that disasters have occurred. I can well remember the Bolton disaster of 1946 because I had contemplated going to that game myself. I am glad that I did not, because 33 people were killed and over 500 injured.
The Wembley Cup Final disaster of 28th April 1923 saw the invasion of the ground by 200,000 people. There is the moral that if we fence in the ground, that may prevent access to a safe area of ground in case of trouble or fire. Miraculously at that Wembley Cup Final there were no fatalities. This led to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Crowds, recommending the principle of tickets for all FA Cup games.
Again, disaster almost struck at Newcastle in 1969 in a match between Glasgow Rangers and Newcastle, when supporters forced their way into the ground, nearly causing another disaster. As a result the Lang Committee on Hooliganism, which has been referred to by other hon. Members this evening, made recommendations to make crowd control much easier. But during a football match in Nottingham the stand caught fire, and although disaster was averted, the emergency highlighted the difficulties of restricted access and of crowd dispersal

where crowds of thousands of people were affected.
Parliament lays down very stringent safety regulations affecting areas of our life where crowds meet—for instance, in cinemas, theatres and, more recently, in hotels, and Parliament gives statutory backing to the police and the fire officers in their inspections. After the Ibrox disaster of 1971, Parliament must lay down similar stringent regulations for all our football grounds.
Obviously, initially Parliament must concern itself with First Division grounds where there are large crowds. The nature of the problem is crowd movement. When there are 40,000 or 50,000 people assembling over a period of two hours and expecting to leave the ground in 10 minutes flat when the game is over, the result very often is herd hysteria and hooliganism, which often flows across from the ground into neighbouring streets, When 100 tons of closely packed people are moving only at moderate speed, such a crowd takes some stopping.
Penning and seating are in my opinion most relevant proposals. As yet, no club in Great Britain has come remotely close to providing full seating capacity, unlike the beautiful stadium in Barcelona which can accommodate 120,000 seated people. Seating may be expensive, but it discourages movement until the match is over and slows down movement even then. Penning also restricts the number entering or leaving by any one entrance, and also movement from one side of the ground to the other, particularly by supporters who want to see their team score goals.
In my opinion the building of pens and the creation of more entrances and exits, together with the development of seating, are the chief needs. Incidentally, it is time for catering and sanitary arrangements to be included, particularly on the terracing sides of the ground.
The noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, had no doubt that the present controls over safety at sports grounds were inadequate. This was a result of his report after the last Ibrox disaster. He found that the existing voluntary system of certification of grounds, introduced by the Football Association, laid down no requirements as to the competence of persons who carried out their annual inspection of grounds, nor were there any guidelines


to assist those persons in their assessment of safety standards. He also thought that there was a risk that those engaged in such inspections might be influenced in the standards they applied by their knowledge of the financial state of the clubs concerned.
In addition, Lord Wheatley was convinced that the law also fell short of providing proper and effective controls over football grounds as a whole rather than over a football ground singly. To take only one example, the building regulations provide for control over stands and structures at football grounds but do not relate to open terraces, which is normally where I stand, although it is in these areas that safety measures are most clearly needed.
There is, however, another element which is reducing safety—the hooliganism that breaks out on terraces and also on the grounds themselves. At one local Derby game a few years ago I was trapped in a tunnel between two rival sets of supporters. I could not get in or get out and the two rival groups were hurling half-bricks, broken bottles and sharpened pennies. A friend who was with me, who happened to be over 6 feet tall, was struck on the head by one of these missiles. He had done nothing wrong. He was not a hooligan, but he was trapped. This kind of thing gives great cause for alarm. I can assure the House that I have never been to another Derby match since.
I urge the Government to impose tougher penalties on those found guilty of crimes of violence of the kind I have enumerated. Among the main problems that continue to afflict professional football in England and Scotland are those of declining attendance and hooliganism, and there is a link between them. Lord Wheatley accordingly concluded that only a specially-devised statutory scheme could ensure comprehensive controls at football grounds in the interests of safety. He recommended statutory licensing control administered by the top tier of local authorities. He proposed that these controls should be introduced by stages, which I believe is important, the larger or more important grounds being dealt with first because obviously that is where there is danger.
The football authorities were in agreement with the proposals but made it clear that they were apprehensive about the financial implications for clubs. This Bill intends that only those grounds in Lord Wheatley's category No. 1 should be dealt with first. These include the international grounds, the English First and Second Division and Scottish First Division clubs, a total of 68 grounds. It will not apply to those grounds with accommodation for fewer than 10,000 spectators although such grounds are not altogether exempt from control.
This brings us to the question of finance. The financial difficulties faced by many professional clubs will undoubtedly be considerable. It is the long-established principle that those who in the course of a commercial enterprise put the public at risk should bear the cost of any statutory safety measures which become necessary. The financial difficulties of the clubs must obviously be kept in mind. We must be flexible about this.
Those clubs which have been following the long-standing recommendations of the Football Association on safety precautions at football grounds may be faced with comparatively little expenditure. The local authorities may require only what is reasonable in the circumstances of each case and they have discretion to allow any necessary work to be completed by stages, subject to compensating safeguards meanwhile. For example, there may be a limitation on the numbers allowed to attend a specific game. Extra stewards may be required, and so on. In this way the costs can be spread over a number of years. Taxation relief should also be of some help to clubs, covering such items as fire sprinklers, fire alarms, systems of flood lighting and seating. VAT could be reduced.
The Lotteries Bill could be used to make it easier for clubs to raise funds to meet the costs of necessary improvements. Another possibility is that of a levy on the football pools. The main provisions in this Bill reflect the Government's desire that the envisaged scheme of control should operate flexibly and reasonably having regard to the circumstances of individual clubs, while achieving a degree of safety which will considerably reduce the risk of another


disaster such as that which occurred at Ibrox Park. We are all extremely anxious to avoid a repetition of that tragedy. It must not happen again.
I recognise that there will be difficulties for the football authorities in making a number of changes to grounds which are necessary to ensure the safety of spectators. However, I feel sure that, despite those problems and difficulties, we all want to see the Bill go forward as rapidly as possible, so that we can guarantee to those who attend football grounds on a Saturday afternoon the degree of safety to which they are entitled.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. John Watkinson: I intervene briefly in this debate as a lover of soccer and, I hope, as a friend of the greatest sport in this country. In my early days it was a simple pleasure to enjoy myself on the terraces, watching soccer matches on Saturday afternoons. It has increasingly become an exercise in masochism, both in terms of what has to be watched on the pitches and what takes place on the terraces of the great football clubs.
I regard the Bill as timely because of the developments which have occurred in the behaviour pattern of spectators on the terraces of our football clubs. Anyone who has watched a big football match on television will have noticed that when goals are scored, or there are near-goals, there are tidal movements down the terraces. Those who have been involved in such tidal movements know the risks and dangers involved.
I vividly rememoer, at a cup tie, being carried 20 yards or 30 yards without my feet touching the ground, as a result of such a movement. It is incumbent upon clubs to provide adequate protection on their terracing to prevent such things happening. We have always had tidal movements at football clubs, but now much greater safety is required because of the nature and behaviour of the spectators.
Anyone who goes to the popular end of a football club knows that the pre-match rituals consist not so much in singing songs while waiting for the teams to come out as in open warfare between two armies of spectators. Clubs must take action to prevent these armies coming into conflict. The popular end of

some of our leading football grounds is a "no man's land", where there are no spectators; only a few stricken, fallen bodies. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Callaghan) about the necessity to introduce a penning system at the popular end of football clubs. It is in the nature of spectators now to behave in the way that I have described. All those who watched the European Cup Final saw the disgraceful way in which spectators from this country behaved abroad. That behaviour is common on our own football grounds. There must be adequate protection on the terraces, otherwise there may well be a very serious disaster, just from a crowd point of view.
I remember the grip that the 1966 World Cup had on the people of this country. It was claimed that this was a sport that could attract the whole family, but any man who took his wife or girl friend to see a football match in this country, would be endangering that woman if he took her on to the terraces, such is the state of behaviour and hooliganism that we have to endure.
I echo my hon. Friend's remarks about hooliganism. I well remember going to a football match and standing at the popular end. The grandstand came over the popular end, and before the match began, the crowd amused itself by throwing bottles on to the roof and watching the broken glass spray over the crowd. That was their form of amusement.
The police should be given further powers to control and search crowds. Indeed, I go along with those who say that magistrates should not be frighteened to impose penalties in the circumstances that I have described. Only by doing that may we deter some of the people who give this country such a disgraceful name on the Continent. I echo everything that my hon. Friend has said on that matter.
It is vital that there should be improved methods of barricading to control crowds both entering and leaving grounds, because the Ibrox Park disaster occurred when some of the crowd were leaving and some were trying to get back.
Anyone who has been on the terraces of our major football grounds will know the steepness of some of the exits and


the inevitability of an accident occurring at some time. Therefore, it is vital that we take action.
I give my whole-hearted support to the Bill. I want increased safety in our football grounds, both on the terraces and in the stands. It may be that the Bill will provide the mechanism whereby some of our clubs and their directors drag themselves into the entertainment business of 1975 and realise that people want to see sport in some degree of safety but, at the same time in some degree of comfort.
I echo the words of my hon. Friend and say that what clubs require is seating accommodation. If seating is available it is likely that we shall be better able to control our hooligans and enjoy the sport. The Bill may assist clubs to provide that necessary safety and comfort to our people.
The matter of finance has been raised. In my view the burden should be placed on the clubs, for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who introduced the Bill. The clubs expose the public to the risk, and they should be expected to bear the burden. When we see the inflated sums that are paid in transfer fees, it comes a bit hard to hear that clubs cannot afford to improve the safety of their grounds for the benefit of spectators. I noticed that the fee offered only this week by a German club for a well-known British player was £180,000. I am told that in Germany—a much richer country than ours—that figure was regarded as astronomical, and way beyond the normal fee. In this country £250,000 is not uncommon. In those circumstances, can clubs really say that they cannot afford to find the money to provide safety for people who come to watch and enjoy soccer?
I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who hoped that the Lotteries Bill would be used by football clubs to provide added finance to meet these safety requirements. Like some of my hon. Friends, I have a great deal of sympathy with the idea that the football pools, which take so much out of soccer, should be asked to contribute something more directly than they do.
But of one thing I am sure—that we should not allow ourselves to be bogged

down by considerations of finance. I do not think that we shall. The first consideration must be the safety of people who go to watch soccer and other sporting entertainments. One Ibrox is disaster enough. It would be intolerable if any of us were prepared to support a situation in which another Ibrox disaster could occur. For that reason, I give my wholehearted support to the Bill.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: In the early hours of this morning I had the strange experience of sitting in the Library and seeing my name appear on the annunciator screen. I immediately came into the Chamber to hear what I had to say. Tonight I got here first. I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate but, like many hon. Members, I was unfortunately engaged in a Standing Committee.
I declare my interest straight away. I am, and for 30 years have been, a supporter of Luton Town Football Club, and a regular attender at Kenilworth Road. The Bill is concerned with safety in sports grounds, but I am thinking of it particularly in the context of safety in football grounds. Although I realise that it is not confined to them, it is clearly primarily concerned with them.
That safety, in a sense, has two aspects. The first is the protection of life and limb from what might be called genuine accidents, or at least accidents caused primarily by inadequate or faulty physical amenities and physical provisions in sports grounds. The second is that concerned with the protection of people from what I might call deliberate malice on the part of others. There are these two separate and distinct aspects of safety. The Bill is presumably aimed primarily at the first.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Callaghan) rightly pointed out, we have had a number of tragedies at football grounds and sports stadia. It is amazing that we have not had more. There is a football ground not an hour's walk from this Chamber where three years ago I stood on the terrace along the side of the ground and saw that the terracing was crumbling very badly. There were few crush barriers, and those were badly placed. Fortunately, that club does not have particularly large


gates, and no tragedy has occurred there. But I should not be surprised if one did occur, unless the club has improved its facilities considerably since then. The answer to the first aspect of safety is fairly clear. We need proper terracing, better crush barriers, proper stairways and all the rest.
However, it is the second aspect of safety, the protection of people from deliberate malice by other spectators, which is the far more difficult and intractable problem. A number of hon. Members have spoken about the problems of hooliganism. I have been concerned with hooliganism, particularly during the last season in Luton. The worst problem is, in a sense, outside the grounds. I realise that the Bill does not cover that aspect of the problem.
I should like to cite one match which took place in Luton last season when we "entertained"—if that is the right word—Chelsea. During the ten minute walk back to the railway station in Luton after the match the Chelsea supporters went on a carnage through the streets. I shall mention two instances. An iron bar was thrown through someone's window and a heavy foundry brick was thrown through another window, narrowly and miraculously missing a baby in a cot. However, I must not stray into that area because, strictly speaking, it is outside the scope of the Bill.
What about hooliganism inside football grounds and the deliberate pushing down of terraces? The pushing down of terraces can be a natural and spontaneous reaction to a particularly exciting piece of play at one end of the ground. However, on a number of occasions I have observed a deliberate pushing down of terraces. To a certain extent this can be prevented by the proper placing of crush barriers.
As the Minister knows, Luton has a small football ground and even the large terrace at the popular end is small by comparison with many other grounds. It is a terrace which is now covered in crush barriers. It probably has more crush barriers per square yard than almost any other ground in the country. Yet even that small and well-covered terrace can be pushed down. I have seen comparatively young boys at that ground literally crying in terror when this has happened.
It has been suggested that there should be seats at football grounds. This would be an extremely expensive proposition. As one who likes to watch football while standing, I am not sure that I should like to see all-seated stadia. There is something to be said for the viewpoint that football is, by its nature, a game which should be seen from a standing position. I cannot afford to go in the stands. To my knowledge the Leeds spectators who were observing the European Cup Final in Paris were seated, but that did not prevent some extremely ugly scenes of hooliganism taking place. Therefore, to sit people down would not, in itself, prevent hooliganism.
Safety should be seen very much in the context of the second category—the protection of people from deliberate malice by other spectators—as well as in the more obvious first category, that of protecting people from genuine accidents.
The subject of finance has been raised by some hon. Members. Football clubs are businesses. To my knowledge all but one of the member clubs of the Football League are limited liability companies. I am not sure whether Nottingham Forest is still a club, but it always has been and is, to my knowledge, not yet a limited liability company. However, if clubs are limited liability companies, commercial enterprises, and if they cannot pay their way, should they be propped up like lame ducks? The answer from most of us would be that we would not want to see them go to the wall and would like to see them continue, because they are more than commercial enterprises. They are clubs. In some sense they represent the communities in which they are set.
But we on the Government side of the House have in recent times strongly maintained the proposition that if we put money into private industry we should take some measure of ownership and control with that money. If we put money into commercial sport, we should expect something in return. We should expect that clubs would become more genuinely clubs and not merely commercial enterprises—clubs which are representative of their communities and which truly serve them.
Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill. However, I would plead that


we need to do far more thinking about how we can control the hooliganism which is blighting and ruining what to me is the greatest game that man has ever invented. I also plead that clubs should become more representative of and more responsive to the communities in which they are set.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: I am sure that I echo the feelings of my Opposition colleagues when I say that the Opposition wish the Bill swift progress and add that we wish to do nothing to hinder its progress on to the statute book. It is to be wholly welcomed. I echo the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) at the outset of the debate—that it will indeed be third time lucky. I can only assume that the absence of my Opposition colleagues is because of their total satisfaction with the Bill and because of a plethora of activity in Standing Committees.
There are several aspects of the Bill with which I want to deal and several questions with which I hope the Minister will deal. We have heard from the speeches of Labour Members of their anxieties and concern about the situation in which we find ourselves in this country. But there is much to be welcomed in the Bill, and the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, is a most comprehensive survey of the problems which have affected spectators at sports grounds and sports stadia in this country for a very long time. It is perhaps sad that three and a half years have elapsed since this report was presented to the Home Secretary, but that is perhaps the fault of our electoral processes and democratic system, which have caused at least a further 16 months to be added.
We heard from the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Callaghan) that the problems of crowd safety have been with us for many years. He gave a graphic description of the many disasters which have occurred in Britain, culminating in the very sad tragedy at Ibrox Park in 1971 which prompted the report on which the Bill is based.
Many people have lost their lives at mass gatherings. This has not been con-

fined solely, of course, to football crowds. The growth of pop concerts in sports stadia has also presented tragedies and enormous problems for the police and local authorities. It is clearly long overdue for this illustrious House to legislate.
I hope that this Bill goes far enough. But I was concerned when I read the technical report upon which the bill is based, under Appendix A on page 20 of the report. That is where the noble Lord lists the three types of safety problem which are to be considered within a football ground and its immediate surroundings. I shall not go into too much detail. The first of his concerns highlights the hazards to individuals which cause tripping, slipping and falling. The guidelines for general constructional features of a ground are laid out later in the report.
The technical report states that the second type of safety problem is:
far more important and more specific to safety at football grounds. When large crowds are present and densities are high the pressures build up within the crowd either through motion or swaying which make it difficult, if indeed possible, for individuals to control their own movements.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) described his experience of that. Lord Wheatley goes on to say that this type of danger arises from crowd pressures. A most important aspect of the report is where Lord Wheatley says:
The third type of safety problem cannot be divorced from the second and in some ways is an extreme version of it. The danger arises from emergency situations which can develop following an outbreak of fire or even hooliganism.
He concludes:
This type of problem is not specifically dealt with in this report.
We have heard from Government supporters and from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries about the problems of hooliganism, which are a cause of wide concern. It is a pity, but understandable, that this subject is not dealt with in the report. In November 1969, Sir John Lang produced a report for the Minister responsible for sport on crowd behaviour at football matches. The working party was set up in May 1968. A great deal has happened in our society in the past seven years to warrant a closer look at an extreme—as Lord Wheatley's report says—but


highly probable outbreak of hooliganism which could start off a further disaster and a further tragedy.
When structural alterations are made to grounds to comply with the forthcoming code, other measures should be taken to make them hooligan-proof. The safety of spectators will not begin and end with the Bill. If mass spectator gatherings are to be made fully safe, more will be required than just this Bill.
There is, first, the question of the effectiveness of the law. Hon. Members on the Labour benches highlighted the difficulties here. If hooliganism, both inside and outside sports grounds, is to be eliminated, I earnestly hope that the Lord Chancellor will encourage magistrates to use their full powers with the full majesty of the law behind them. How often do we hear of the lout who attacks officials, policemen, spectators, and private citizens being fined the maximum £400? Never. The average fine is about £40, and there might be an occasional fine of £100. I cannot help recalling the occasion when Manchester United football fans went to Belgium two or three years ago and indulged in several hours of mayhem in the streets and were arrested. On their release they were all discovered to be aged between 17 and 20 and to have brought with them for their 24-hour football furlough £150 each. One might well ask where the money came from.

Mr. Clemitson: Would it not make sense to devise a punishment to prevent the offenders from attending football matches for a considerable period of time?

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point which I shall come to in a moment. There must be scope for hitting the persistent hooligan very sharply through his wallet.
When a magistrate wishes to send a hooligan to a remand centre or detention centre, as we know from experience in our constituents, he finds that there is a lack of accommodation. Frequently, much time is spent on the telephone, trying to find a detention centre in which the hooligan can be put, all to no avail.
Such problems cause much disquiet to police and magistrates alike. I know that the police are concerned that sports

ground disasters can still occur if hooliganism gets out of hand. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) when he advocates a lengthy period of detention to be served on consecutive Saturday afternoons and perhaps on mid-week occasions when there is an evening game at home.
Recent scenes at the Leeds football match in Paris highlighted the kind of spark that can set alight a major disaster if effective control is lost. In this country we are privileged to have a police force which has adapted superbly to handling the restlessness at mass gatherings in sports arenas. I was recently privileged to visit Wembley on the first Saturday of the referendum campaign to watch the England-Scotland soccer match. I am sorry to have to remind my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries of that ignominious afternoon for the Scottish football team. I was able to see at first hand how effectively the police liaised with the football authorities.
The Minister responsible for sport knows better than anyone else in the Chamber what enormous problems that sort of scene can create. If ever a scene were set for confrontation, given the invasion, as it were, of the Scottish hordes, that was the time for it to take place. I pay tribute to the Minister for the difficult 48 hours or 72 hours which he must have had before the match began. He had to face the problems of the strike in addition to everything else. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he handled the situation. When I saw the Minister on television late on Friday afternoon and in the evening I thought that he summed up the situation most admirably when he said, in response to the many requests to cancel the match, that he would not spoil the enjoyment of 99·9 per cent. of the football loving population of this country for the 0·1 per cent. lunatic fringe which, as the hon. Member for Luton, East has said, has malice written right across it.
There was a moment when the match hung on the reaction of one solitary policeman. As the teams were about to commence playing a Scottish supporter ran on to the pitch and did something which was the repeated fairly frequently throughout the afternoon—he kicked the ball past the Scottish goal area. This


was the forerunner of the steady stream of such action that we saw during the match. In other countries it is true to say that several policemen might well have hurtled into the luckless goal-scoring Scot. There were only one or two players that afternoon who achieved that strike. If the police had rained blows on the supporter's head in using their batons that would have been the signal for 40 or 50 of his supporters to join in the fray. Instead of that, the policeman quietly beckoned him to leave. He opened the gate for him, shaking his hand and embracing him. An ugly incident was averted. It was interesting to see that the conduct of the police was of an amicable nature that afternoon. Their work with the football clubs is of paramount importance.
The police pay tribute to the vast majority of clubs which co-operate fully with the local police force. Unquestionably the Lang Report has had much to do with the overall improvement in ground facilities and the greater understanding between the police and sports ground management. Facilities for the police within the grounds are now generally satisfactory. In that respect some are excellent but others are not so good.
No doubt we can discuss in Committee the development of closed-circuit television, which Sir John Lang recommended in 1969 as being of enormous benefit to the police. It is something which has not generally been developed in this country and it would remove the problem which the police have at the large grounds in winkling out the troublemakers swiftly. When I was talking to the commissioner responsible for crowd control in the metropolitan area the other day, he made it clear that many of the grounds have policemen stationed at certain points equipped with binoculars. They are looking into the crowd continually. I hope that we shall make provision to encourage football clubs to install closed-circuit television.
It is recognised by the police that many sports ground managements have excellent systems for dealing with troublemakers. Some clubs write to the parents of the trouble-making youths if they invade the pitch. They do so in order to

enlist parental involvement. That must be right. The parents might well be asked to make a greater contribution when the magistrates consider what fine to levy on the under-l7-year-old. All too often parents are not involved sufficiently fully. I believe that if the fathers were invited by the magistrates to pay the fines on behalf of their wayward sons we would have a great deal of success in enlisting more parental involvement.
I have put forward several factors which must work smoothly if sports grounds are to be made safe. None will work effectively if sportsmen who appear in front of crowds are guilty of setting a violent example. Modern society provides large financial rewards for successful football teams and, to a lesser extent, successful cricket teams. In the heat of the moment tempers lost on the field of play can only excite emotional reactions on the terraces and in the stands. The need for restraint among players is strong, yet at the present time I doubt whether their conduct on the field of play is satisfactory. Indeed, I suggest that governing bodies and clubs have a clear duty to look at themselves to see whether the sentences on wayward players are adequate. I doubt whether they are at present. If we look at top-class international players who are household names, we know that many young players are guilty of offensive gestures and dissent on the field. Perhaps if they persistently offend they should be banned from playing for a whole season.
There is no doubt that effective crowd control linked to the recommendations in the Wheatley Report will be responsible for averting sports ground tragedies. I hope that next year there will be a decline in the kind of statistic with which the Metropolitan Police has had to deal in the past three seasons. In 1972–73, 3,900 fans were ejected from football grounds in the Metropolitan area. In 1973–74 the figure had dropped to 3,800. But in the last year, 1974–75, the figure rose to over 5,500. That is the current trend.
Paradoxically, in 1972–73, 460 people were arrested within football grounds. In 1973–74 the figure had risen to over 500, and last year, in 1974–75, the figure was static at 500. Of the figure of 500, 270 were arrested in sports stadia, 216 were


adults and 56 were juveniles. It is significant that this happened in the metropolitan area. No doubt the Home Office can draw on countrywide figures and establish trends. However, the figures have not risen very sharply in the metropolitan area in the past three years. I should be interested to learn at some time how the figures have moved throughout England and Scotland.
The debate has rightly concentrated on the safety aspects of football grounds. This is understandable because no other sport enjoys such a massive and intensive following or attracts such mass gatherings. But we should not concentrate solely on football grounds, because in this legislation we are envisaging grounds with a capacity in excess of 10,000. I disagree with one or two hon. Members who said that football was the greatest game man had invented. I prefer to differ marginally and say that perhaps cricket should be awarded that accolade. Cricket has developed in the last 10 years, there have been larger financial rewards, and that is to be welcomed. Grounds are seeing crowds of over 10,000. This does not apply everywhere but certainly it is the case at the Oval, Lords, Headingley, Birmingham, Trent Bridge and Manchester. Crowds of over 10,000 are attracted to one-day cricket matches such as the Gillette Cup and the Benson and Hedges event.
I hope that if the Minister responsible for sport has some financial "goody" up his sleeve, he will feel that the cricket authorities are worthy of his consideration. Their financial situation on a comparable basis with that of top football teams is not so good, but last week-end during the Australia-West Indies one-day match there was an attendance of 20,000 spectators in a ground capable of holding between 15,000 and 16,000 people.
Rugby is another sport which regularly, in both League and Rugby Union matches, attracts crowds of over 10,000—not as frequently as soccer games, but it happens quite often. Therefore, I hope that any help will not be devoted wholly to the game of football. I hope that consideration will be given to other sports of a permanent or temporary nature which attract crowds of over 10,000.
The Opposition hope that the Bill will proceed quickly to the statute book. I emphasise that the Bill will be far from foolproof if it does not go hand in hand with urgent action from many quarters. Magistrates have a duty to provide an effective deterrent to the habitual hooligan. The rôle of the police is always of crucial importance. Clubs must cooperate and give the police the facilities they seek. That will cost money.
However, I take the view that if the sports ground management committees provide the entertainment, they must provide the safety. Parents must be brought into the club arena. They must accept that they must act responsibly and become involved. The players and their governing bodies are an integral part in the process of providing for the safety of the spectators.
The Home Office principally, and the Department of the Environment to a lesser though important extent, must understand that although the Bill goes a long way towards rationalising sports ground problems, it will not solve them overnight. Those aspects worry the authorities. The last measure we want to see in this country is the introduction of identity cards for football fans. We do not want to see moats and large areas of reinforced netting around the pitches such as we see in South America.
If additional firm action is taken in conjunction with this Bill, further tragedies will be averted. The Opposition will do nothing to hinder this worthy Bill.

9.12 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) for his kind appreciation of my efforts on the occasion of the England-Scotland match, as well as for the general welcome given by all other speakers to the Government's proposals. Whilst I am glad to receive the tribute of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, I am sorry that my efforts did not bear fruit and that the trains did not run. It would be wrong for us not to acknowledge the fact that, on the whole, the large numbers of people who came from Scotland behaved extremely well. One should pay tribute to them. In those harrowing circumstances they were able


to enjoy themselves and behave themselves at the same time. I mention that because that seems to me to be the essence of much of our policies. Those two types of behaviour are compatible. There is no reason why people should not both enjoy themselves and behave themselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Callaghan) gave a long catalogue of the history of disasters which have afflicted football over the years. I am grateful to him for doing so, first, because it saves me from having to do the same. I cannot think of anything which he has left out. I am grateful, secondly, because it is very important that the House should be reminded of the reason for the Bill. Our friends who are concerned in football should also remind themselves of the reasons for the Bill. I refer to the collective responsibility which we must all share to prevent these terrible disasters from re-occurring.
I am glad to take this opportunity of joining the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) in a tribute to Lord Wheatley and the police. Lord Wheatley studied these problems with great thoroughness. Both Conservative and Labour Governments have had cause to appreciate that report. I pay a tribute to my predecessors in office. This is their Bill, although we have added to it, tidied it up and addressed ourselves to matters of detail.
There is a widespread agreement on both sides of the House, which is a tribute to Lord Wheatley. The football authorities will appreciate that the House is united about the pre-eminent importance of guaranteeing the safety of spectators attending sports grounds and football matches. Everything else pales into insignificance compared with that basic principle.
The same applies to hooliganism. Again, the responsibility of the clubs and the football authorities is paramount in this respect. I shall have cause in a moment to issue one or two words of concern on this aspect, but I am sure that we would all agree that there is no excuse for clubs not dealing immediately with the problems of their grounds if they are seeking to attract the public.
I am grateful to pay my tribute to Lord Wheatley, as I do to the police.

I suppose that I visit football grounds more than any other hon. Member does, and I see what is happening on Saturday afternoons. I am able to assess the situation and talk to the police officers after the game. This nation has good cause to be thankful for its police force. When I go abroad and see how the police forces elsewhere deal with these troubles I realise that the self-discipline and tolerance of the British policeman is unmatched anywhere in the world. Some of our worst offenders have good cause to thank the tolerance of the British policeman, even though it is running a bit short these days, and they might stop to consider that aspect of the matter.
I do not want to go into the details of the Bill, clause by clause, because that has already been done. Since the recommendations of the Wheatley Committee became known other aspects of public safety arising from so-called football hooliganism have added to our problem. It is interesting to note that every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has thought it right to refer to hooliganism as well as to the issues of safety which originally gave rise to the report and the inquiry by Lord Wheatley. The hon. Member for Dumfries complained a little about our delay in bringing forward the Bill. One of the reasons for that was that we had to make quite sure that our consultations were full and we were particularly concerned about the financial situation, as were the Conservatives when they were in power.
I was interested in the contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Mr. Jones), Newport (Mr. Hughes). Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Callaghan), Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) and Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson). I seem to have refereed games in each of their constituencies, which must be something of a record, and I have had some interesting experiences there, with which I shall not weary the House now. Whenever I refereed at Newport the drains seemed to be stopped up. On one occasion I was told, "You cannot play here today, there is too much mud". I replied that I never put off a game because of mud, since it reduced the players to my speed. I remember refereeing the magic match at Burnley, when they played Tottenham Hotspur. It was a tremendous delight. I am sorry


about Luton. That team has been relegated, but if its Member is anything to go by, with his devotion to it, I am sure that we shall be seeing the team back in the First Division. It almost escaped relegation, but it left its recovery a little too late in the day. That is a lesson for this and any other Government.

Mr. Dan Jones: When my hon. Friend refers to the Burnley-Tottenham game he should remember that Burnley was four goals behind and then drew even, which shows character as well as skill.

Mr. Howell: I think that the team's chairman, who is well known to us, was about to leave his seat in the front row of the stand and come on to the field as the twelfth man. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the Burnley team has character.
In March 1974 I established a working party to keep all aspects of this problem under continual review. As the House will know, I decided to chair this working party myself, in order to demonstrate the Government's view of the seriousness of the situation. The membership consists of representatives of the appropriate Government Departments, the Football Association, the Football League, the Sports Council, and the Association of Football League Secretaries and Managers. We have met many times, and I am most grateful to all those gentlemen for their continuing attention to our problems in football.
We met about three weeks ago, when reviewing this season's work, and will be meeting again next week or the week after. It is a continuing process. I mention this because when some people comment on us they seem to think that Members of this House, or Governments, or football authorities can wave a magic wand and make all our problems disappear. That is not so. We shall only get on top of the difficulty by a continuing application to the problem. I assure the House that that is what we intend to do.
From time to time we have issued advice on a whole range of matters concerning this subject, and we shall shortly be consolidating and revising this advice in the light of this seasons developments. On the whole, we believe that there has been some improvement in crowd

behaviour inside grounds, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman who said earlier that there is some evidence that our problems are rather greater outside grounds, especially in respect of the transportation of spectators around the country. That gives rise to considerable concern.
In this Bill, as the hon. Member for Luton, East said, we are concerned only with the situation inside sports grounds.
In company with my working party, I visited more than 20 First and Second Division football grounds. Other members have visited other grounds. There are six First Division grounds not yet visited, which we intend to visit in the very near future. Apart from these visits, all clubs have been constantly informed of our recommendations. The Secretary of the working party has asked the First and Second Division clubs to inform us of the steps they have taken to implement the various recommendations of the working party.
I thought I ought to report to the House what has been happening about the implementation of our various recommendations. I cannot pretend that progress in this respect has been as fast or as satisfactory as I believe the situation warrants, or, indeed, as I think hon. Members from all sides have demanded. Some clubs have fully implemented our recommendations, and I am grateful to them for their proper sense of public responsibility. Others informed us, some time ago, that they intend to carry out the work in the close season, and we shall certainly monitor the position very carefully to ensure that they do so.
I regret that a minority of clubs have not provided us with answers to our inquiries or given us details of the way in which they intend to give the maximum protection to their public. This is intolerable from a public safety standpoint, as well as being unacceptable to my working party and. I believe, to the House as a whole.

Mr. Clement Freud: Name them.

Mr. Howell: I do not wish to name these clubs at the moment, because I am seeking their cooperation. I shall say shortly what I intend to do about


clubs which continue to ignore our advice.
The House may like to have a rough breakdown of the statistics in the First and Second Divisions. Sixteen clubs have told us that they are implementing or have implemented the various recommendations of my working party. I regret that we have not yet had satisfactory responses from another 16. The remaining 12 clubs in the First and Second Divisions have told us that they will be hoping to implement them in the close season or are considering how to do so. That is the breakdown in the First and Second Divisions. Only 16 can give a clean sheet of health. I am profoundly disappointed with another 16, and I am glad to say that the remaining 12 are showing signs of tackling the matter.
It is because of these facts that the Government intend to consider how the proposals of the working party, to the extent that they are concerned with public safety inside our grounds, can be formally included in the green code—the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds—which is a code of practice to which local authorities will have regard as the licensing authorities for the issuing of certificates for the public use of football grounds. In other words, we are serving notice now that when we make amendments to the code we expect local authorities to have regard to the advice that we have given and to consider, when they issue safety certificates, how far the clubs have carried out those recommendations. I hope that I carry the House with me in suggesting amendments to the green code.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: Will my hon. Friend review the situation prior to the start of the season? If he has not had satisfaction from 16 clubs, should they not be named, so that spectators who go to these grounds are aware that they do not meet the safety regulations?

Mr. Howell: I have a great deal of sympathy with that approach. We are in the middle of reviewing the progress, or lack of it, from last season. We intend to write to all the clubs again before the end of the close season, demanding to know from those which have not given satisfactory assurances what they intend to do about the matter, and I hope that our

exchanges tonight will bring some of them to a more lively sense of their public responsibility than they have shown so far. At that moment, it may become right to allow the public the fullest information on this matter, but for the present, I hope for the co-operation of the clubs and, to be fair, some of their main difficulties are in the realm of finance, to which I now want to turn.

Mr. Freud: Surely it is up to us to tell the clubs what to do, and not for the Minister to write to them yet again. Is there not also a duty on the part of pools promoters, who are getting vast sums of money out of football, to help those clubs which are unable to afford the full implementation of the provisions of this Bill, so that they may have the necessary money?

Mr. Howell: We are proceeding to tell the clubs what to do. The difficulty is that without a statute behind us we cannot insist on people carrying out what we tell them they should be doing. We shall be in a very different situation once this measure is on the statute book. That is why I couched what I had to say in the terms I did.
My hon. Friends the Members for Burnley and Newport drew attention to the financial obligations upon football and sport in general. When this Bill was previously before Parliament we, as the then Opposition, were critical of the lack of financial assistance available to the clubs which had to implement it. Therefore, the Government have given a great deal of attention to the considerable financial problems of football clubs.
In the present economic situation facing the country, I must stress that it is not possible to provide more financial assistance from public funds. It is also important to remember—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West for making the point—that nothing can be done to undermine the principle that organisations which seek to attract the public in large numbers for sporting occasions have a responsibility for their safety. The responsibility is theirs.
The Government have therefore concentrated on means of helping sport, especially football, other than by direct Government subvention. Two important proposals have been announced already,


as the Minister of State told the House earlier. Expenditure on fixed plant and machinery, including safety equipment, floodlighting, removable seating, and so on, already qualify for tax relief. We have also announced that in the Finance Bill at present before the House we are making further proposals, in Clause 46, which will help the clubs. I do not pretend that this is an answer to the financial problems of sports clubs, but it will be a help.
One of my hon. Friends was a little sceptical about the help which would come from lotteries. The proposals of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are very important, and they have been welcomed in football circles. The new Lotteries Bill substantially raises the turnover and the prizes of small lotteries, so that it will become legal to conduct a small lottery up to a turnover of £10,000 a week. Most football clubs already have pools organised by supporters' organisations or by themselves and should be able to take early advantage of this new opportunity. Certainly, for myself I hope they are now preparing their arrangements to take advantage of the new situation. I can tell the hon. Member for Dumfries that we have calculated that this should at least double the income of small lotteries from the pool, and if our expectation is right and they take the full commercial opportunity, this will yield an extra £2 million or £3 million a year for football, which will be very important.
I have news of another proposal which I am sure the House will welcome and which will be very helpful in implementing this Bill. At the instigation of the Pools Promoters' Association and the Football League it has been agreed that a new contribution will be made by the PPA in respect of the "Spotting the Ball" competition which it organises and which at the moment makes no contribution at all to football. The Pools Promoters' Association has voluntarily submitted details of its "Spotting the Ball" competition to Sir Stanley Raymond, the Chairman of the Gaming Board for Great Britain, which was very wise on its part, especially in view of one or two controversial comments about that competition which we have noted.
I am glad to tell the House that after full investigations Sir Stanley is fully satis-

fied as to the fairness with which the PPA competition is run and the proceeds distributed. This is an unofficial arrangement, not involving the Government, but I can say from what we have learnt of this particular competition, and are told by Sir Stanley—and we accept it—that it is most scrupulously conducted. In any case, I am sure the Football League would not have contemplated an arrangement with the association had it been otherwise.
As a consequence of that investigation by Sir Stanley Raymond, the PPA has informed me that it will in future pay 10 per cent. of the stake money from its "Spotting the Ball" competition into a trust to be operated for the good of football. It is estimated that the trust, to be know as the Football Grounds Improvement Trust, will have an initial income of about £650,000 a year. There will be three objects of the new trust—to bring Football League grounds up to the required safety standards, to improve their grounds for spectators and players, and to develop sports complexes or other recreational facilities as part of their grounds. I attach great importance to the third object.
Whilst the first two objects—public safety and putting football grounds in order—must be the priority in the early years of the new trust, I am especially grateful both to the PPA and the Football League for their agreement to ensure that as far as possible any necessary work should be designed to have regard to the need for additional sports facilities, and for including the third, longer-term objective, which I believe will be of great help in providing additional sports facilities at all our football grounds. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley that we are talking not about making additional use of the pitch but about designing stands so that they can be used for other sports in the day time, putting down squash courts and turning football grounds into sports clubs for the whole of the community for some of the time. This is an extremely welcome development, and I am delighted to be able to announce details to the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich also drew attention to the fact that many of these grounds are in older industrialised parts of the


country. He was using that fact to illustrate the difficulties of safety provision. I agree with him about that, but I am sure he will agree with me that because all of our grounds are the products of the Industrial Revolution and are in centres of urban population, they also provide us with wonderful opportunities to open them up to ordinary working people. That is the Government's aim in many of their proposals and I am glad that they are now embraced by the Pools Pro-motors' Association and the Football League. In the longer term we can look forward to achieving success in that respect.
I am also glad to report that two members of the original Chester Committee, which reported to me on the state of football when I was last in office, have been invited to become trustees of the new trust—Sir Norman Chester as its chairman and Mr. Clifford Barclay who was on the Chester Committee and specialised in financial matters. I am hopeful that they will agree to accept office. I would like to express my appreciation to the PPA and the Football League—especially to Mr. Cecil Moores and Mr. Alan Hardaker, with whom I have been discussing these arrangements—for their initiatives and for the attention they have given to the proposals which has brought them to such a successful conclusion. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing the new trust every success in the belief that it will provide invaluable help to football and to sport as a whole.

Mr. Monro: May I say "Well done"? The Minister has made an important statement, which will be welcomed by everyone in the House. May we say "Thank you" to the pool promoters and to the League for achieving this breakthrough? It is probably too early for the Minister to give any more details, but does he envisage that in the early years much of the £650,000 income will go to the category I clubs that have to secure a licence from the authorities, or does he hope to spread it over the whole gamut, including the recreational centres?

Mr. Howell: In the first instance, the money will go to those clubs which are designated category 1 by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We hope

that in designing and constructing stands regard will be had to the third obpective of the trust. We shall move on from priority to priority.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am sure that all hon. Members will be impressed by my hon. Friend's statement, which represents an important step forward. There is one point upon which he can perhaps elaborate. At what stage will the Sports Council and the local authority leisure committees be brought into the discussions about the use of funds from this trust in the development of recreational and other facilities? Is it for them now to start thinking in terms of planning?

Mr. Howell: Mr. Alan Hardaker, the Football League Secretary, will be closely concerned with this trust. He is a member of the Sports Council. I appointed him some time ago specifically to improve relationships between the council and the Football League authorities.

Mr. Jim Lester: While welcoming what the Minister has said and supporting what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) has said about the accolade that should go to cricket, may I ask the Minister to pay tribute to what has happened at Trent Bridge cricket ground, where the same facilities, in terms of a sports centre, have been developed without the assistance that has been created here?

Mr. Howell: I shall deal with some of these matters when I can make progress with my speech.

Mr. Freud: There are two aspects about which I would like to ask questions. The Minister will remember that the early "Spotting the Ball" competition was ruled illegal by the High Court because it did not contain any element of skill. The House would like to know to what extent the new competition is more skilful. The Minister will remember that the previous competition was the antithesis of skill. The more unlikely the place in which the ball found itself the fewer the winners and the greater the success of the competition. The House will want to know how it has changed, not only so that justice can be seen to be done but so that people will realise that this is not a blackmail attempt or a bribe on the


part of the pools promoters to carve out a profitable new competition for themselves, or the payment of what to them is a not very substantial sum to a charitable fund.
May I turn now to the percentage of the profit which will be concerned with this 10 per cent? Will the pools promoters have to announce, as they do now, how much money is distributed to the winners and how much is retained for profit, for tax, and for this new fund?

Mr. Howell: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) sounded so churlish when people who, as far as I know, are conducting a lawful enterprise make an offer of this sort. It is quite true that there has been some doubt about the legality of the "Spotting the Ball" competitions, and that one of them, some time ago, was declared to be illegal. However, we are dealing here with a competition that has gone on for a long time since then, and which took account, I understand, of the High Court judgment. I assume that this competition is continuing lawfully. If anybody thinks that it is not he will no doubt take the appropriate action in the courts. However, for the moment the assumption must be that the organisers are carrying out, like every other business, a satisfactory enterprise.
Law, or the enforcement of law, is nothing to do with me. I am grateful that the offer has been forthcoming and that it has been accepted. It should be sufficient guarantee to the House that Sir Stanley Raymond, who was appointed Chairman of the Gaming Board by the Secretary of State, has spent several weeks—this is one of the many reasons for the delay in introducing the Bill—investigating the pools promoters' "Spotting the Ball" competition. He has given the competition a clean bill of health and said that it is scrupulously conducted and that what the pools promoters take out is reasonable. He is satisfied on all these counts, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be.
I turn to one or two matters to which I attach importance in the Guide to Safety in Sports Grounds. I shall refer to two in particular, because they are matters which have given me concern. I know that other hon. Members have referred to other aspects of the guide, but

one major aspect is the pitch perimeter fence and wall. One of the problems—which I saw at the match in Paris—is that on the Continent neither clubs nor police will allow anybody to go on to the pitch. In this country there has been an increasing tendency for people to go on to it. The time has come when we must stop that practice. If our habits differ from those in Europe, there is likely to be the sort of confrontation which we have recently experienced. There have now been five incidents when five different clubs have gone into Europe. It is a disgrace, which must be brought to an end. All of us are ashamed that these difficulties continue. No one was more humiliated than I was at having to apologise to the French Prime Minister for the behaviour of so-called football supporters. They were behaving like louts. This is what we have been concentrating upon in recent months. We must stop people misbehaving inside the grounds and getting on to the pitches.
In paragraph 7 of the guide we have made very clear the nature of the arrangements we wish to have. I invented the phrase "security walkways", but that became known as "dry moats". I do not object to that. Where the clubs have put the dry moats in with two walls, one bounding the pitch and the other a yard or two further back, separating the spectators and allowing the police and other people to walk in between, they have been universally successful. We attach great importance to having gaps or manned gates in the walls, because access into and exit from the ground is of tremendous importance.
One of the main troubles at the Leeds United match in Paris was that the police could not get into the crowd, because in Europe they do not want to. They have a different approach from ours. They put all the spectators together, pen them up and say, in effect, "It is up to you. We are not coming in." That is not our approach. We attach great importance to the ability of the police to get in and out of the terraces when they want to. I should like to emphasise that point.
The second thing that I should like to emphasise comes under the headine of paragraph 17—Communications. Many of our sports clubs, particularly football clubs, have much to learn about means


of communications at grounds. When some of our largest grounds are full it is almost impossible to hear a simple loudspeaker announcement. We shall expect clubs to have regular consultations with the police and, secondly, to install metering systems to control the numbers of people going into any one part of a ground. Most important, we shall expect an adequate public address system to be installed—one which is effective against the loud noise on sporting occasions.
There has been a suggestion from EUFA that we should have sliding gates at pitches. EUFA also wants fences round the pitches. We are not very attracted by fences. We much prefer the dry moat system, but if we are to have fences, because EUFA insists, we must insist that any fences should at least have sliding gates or, preferably gaps, manned by the police, and that at all times the right of access into and exit from the crowd be maintained for the police and security services.
The hon. Member for Dumfries wanted to know whether these powers would still be exercised by the top-tier authorities in Scotland. The answer is "Yes". He also wanted to know when the Bill would be implemented. The answer is "As soon as it is on the statute book". We first have to consult and then to make an order. Wise clubs will immediately proceed to get on with the work, because we do not intend to have any delay.
I was asked whether there would be flexibility in the arrangements. We want the maximum flexibility, subject always to the over-riding consideration of public safety, which must come first.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the proposed identity card issued by the National Association of Supporters' Clubs. I got my colleagues on the working party to consider the matter. The clubs do not like it, because of delay in examining the cards at the turnstiles. They feel that it would be impracticable. Nevertheless, we are considering, particularly for away matches, how travel tickets, grounds tickets, and such matters can be limited to genuine supporters—shareholders, season ticket holders or members of supporters' clubs. That sort of development would be a great help.
I should like to say a word about Hampden Park. The hon. Gentleman will know, because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave him an answer yesterday, that we have had the report on Hampden Park for only four weeks. There is a grave financial crisis facing the country, as the hon. Gentleman recognised. When the hon. Gentleman demands immediate implementation of the report at a cost of £15 million, he must be consistent, in terms of the restrictions on public expenditure that he and his right hon. Friends are urging on the Government from time to time.

Mr. Monro: To be fair, I said that I appreciated that there was a financial difficulty. But in three years' time, about the time when we would expect building to start, heaven help us if the Government are still in such a financial mess.

Mr. Howell: The economic crisis is serious, and it would be a foolhardy person who suggested a time when we might expect to be out of it. I agree that this difficult time is the moment to do our thinking and planning.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary hopes to consult all the authorities concerned in the autumn. That is rather speedy action. In any case, local authorities have to find some of the money, and the Government are in no position to insist on local authorities spending their own money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport asked whether there would be a delay over the Secretary of State's dealing with any appeals. The answer is "No". If we were to set up an independent inquiry, it would probably take more time. This is not a planning matter. It is a straightforward appeal for the Secretary of State to decide the facts and determine the matter. This is easily the best arrangement.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich, who dealt with matters of crowd movement and pressures, and with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West about penalties. I urge the courts to award the maximum penalties for these offences. That is essential. I went round the country and met all the police forces. One of the things they told me was that


they do not want any more powers—that their powers are adequate—but they want the courts to enforce their powers and award maximum sentences.
The hon. Member for Dumfries will be surprised to know that many detention centres are now half empty because magistrates are not committing offenders to them. However, we must not confuse detention centres with attendance centres—another aspect with which we have to deal. First, we want to section our grounds and get on to all-seating later, but that will depend on the money available to us.
We have had an interesting and constructive debate. I know that we can examine many of the matters of detail in Committee. I am heartened by the fact that all hon. Members have understood the serious nature of the problem and that the whole House is determined to assist the football authorities and the police conquer the problem and make football, a great sport, once again safe for any man to take his wife and family to see.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

SAFETY OF SPORTS GROUNDS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for safety at sports stadia and other sports grounds it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act, and of any increase attributable to that Act in his expenses under any other Act.—[Miss Margaret Jackson.]

LIMITATION BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

STATUTORY INSTRUMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments).

COUNTER-INFLATION

That the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 864), a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved.—[Miss Margaret Jackson.]

Question agreed to.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 18th December relating to nomination of members of the Committee of Public Accounts, Dr. John Gilbert and Mr. Denzil Davies be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Robert Sheldon be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Miss Margaret Jackson.]

COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION (WOLDS WAY)

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I start the debate on the Countryside Commission and the Wolds Way by first declaring my interest. I am president of the East Riding and Derwent Ramblers' Association.
Any country lover must be concerned with the protection of the countryside and access to it—the two purposes enshrined in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Countryside Act 1968. I rise to assert that the power


of the Countryside Commission, the guardian of these two purposes, has declined, is declining and should increase. Dangers to the countryside have never been greater, and the power to defend it has become correspondingly weaker.
More people than even before want access to this part of the national heritage, and quite rightly. The threats from mines, industry, the Armed Forces, reservoirs—although in many ways reservoirs can improve the nature of the landscape—alien installations on the coastline, television masts, roads and the unregulated cars of visitors are stark and obvious.
We condemn the way in which our Victorian forebears scarred the face of Britain. With much less excuse, but just as irredeemably, we are doing the same thing. It is not simply posterity which will condemn our failure to act. It is the articulate and growing amenity lobby, and the less articulate millions who visit the countryside and deplore the deterioration of its quality. They seek to ensure the retention of its many virtues.
These sombre reflections are the background to my comments on the Countryside Commission, a body which has uncomplainingly seen its own plans for coastal national heritage areas gravely weakened, which has faced both ways—at some potential risk—over the issue of bulls on public paths—which has allowed long-distance footpaths to be opened when still in an unfinished and unacceptable state, and which has compromised over the control and administration of national parks. In an article in the Observer on 9th February, Christopher Brasher, one of the best known figures in the outdoor world, wrote angrily about a proposed road in the heart of the Snowdonia National Park. Brasher commented:
The Countryside Commission never challenged the basic concept of a road but merely confined itself, at officer level, to 'alleviating its visual impact' … One might imagine that the Countryside Commission is charged with the task of preserving natural beauty, but it has never had any bite and it is known not to use its bark.
A debate took place in another place on 15th May 1973 on the commission's work and its rôle. All the peers who spoke, with the exception of the Minister, Lord Sandford, deplored the commission's lack of independence vis-à-vis the

Government. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley put his finger on the crux of the matter when he commented that the commission saw its work as being primarily "advisory and promotional". The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who had been instrumental in setting up the commission in 1968, stressed that the intention of the Government had been to create an independent body with real power, while Lord Henley, chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, pointed out that even under its existing powers the commission was able, if it wished, to adopt a forceful public rôle as guardian of the countryside.
Replying to that debate, the Minister made an important pronouncement. He declared:
The Commission has an independent voice of its own which it is entirely at liberty to use and which is entirely right for it to use whenever it sees fit."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15th May 1973; c. 800.]
The problem was then one of subservience of the commision to the Government, and this problem remains. It is vitally important that the commission should remain an independent body.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government said when he opened the commission's new premises and repeated Lord Sandford's assurance. This is not only a question, as my right hon. Friend has said, of the commission being an independent body. It is necessary that that message should also get home to the commission. But in many cases, and in the present case, which I shall use to illustrate my point shortly, the problem is one of subservience to landowners, a potentially even more alarming situation.
The failures of the Countryside Commission are all too typical, not only in its rôle as protector of the countryside but as guardian of access to it. The commission has recently spoken about our footpath network—a cherished amenity of our countryside—in a way totally inconsistent with its duty to improve access. In its publication "New Agricultural Landscapes", a report which it published last autumn concerning changing land usage in lowland areas. the commission went out of its way to ask farmers whether they were bothered by trespass and whether they wanted "reorganisation" of the footpaths. Does


that mean what I fear in this case it means—reduction? Again, the Assistant Director of the commission, Mr. J. M. Davidson, speaking to a conference on the future of the countryside last December, replied to a speaker who complained about the ploughing up of footpaths that in his view not all footpaths were essential. What kind of friend of the countrygoer is this?
This brings me to the significant story which I wish to lay before the House, concerning the problem of the Wolds Way, the 70-mile long-distance footpath which, continuing the Cleveland Way in North Yorkshire, will one day run the length of the former East Riding of Yorkshire. The Yorkshire Wolds in my part of the country are attractive and unspoiled countryside, civilised by man over the ages, with a peculiar charm of their own, which are cherished by many walkers in my constituency and surrounding parts of Yorkshire and Humberside, but which are seriously deficient in footpaths and bridleways.
Creation of the Wolds Way is more than a minor matter. It is of more than considerable local importance, and it raises questions of principle affecting national policy as a whole. It is not too strong to say that the creation of the Wolds Way has been delayed and betrayed by the Countryside Commission, the body charged with bringing it into existence.
The plan for a long-distance footpath across the Yorkshire Wolds is an old one, and a famous Yorkshire writer, A. J. Brown, wrote more than 40 years ago of his own pilgrimage along the paths of the "Wolds Way". Its modern history began in 1968, when the Ramblers' Association, which has all along been the driving force behind the scheme, put forward a detailed plan for a Wolds Way. It found immediate favour with the public and the media and was given widespread publicity. The Ramblers' Association, the East Riding County Council and its successors in Humberside and North Yorkshire have received many requests for information about a plan which continues to excite a lively interest, outside as well as inside Yorkshire and Humberside—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Miss Margaret Jackson.]

Mr. McNamara: It is, however, worth pointing out that even in 1968 there were voices warning that, attractive as the plan was, the long delays characteristic of the creation of other log-distance paths might well also afflict the Wolds Way. The Guardian was one of these. Welcoming the scheme in January, 1968, it feared "a long trek ahead", and pessimistically but accurately, predicted that
it might be ready about 1980.
However, at the start, everything began well. In July 1968 the East Riding County Council approved the Wolds Way "in principle", and the following October the Countryside Commission did the same. For over two years the rights of way staff of the county council carried out laborious negotiations with interested parties, notably the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union, both of which showed masterly powers of obstruction and delay. Finally, in February 1971 the county council put forward its preferred route for the Wolds Way. In effect it was no more than a discussion document, and it was by no means an ideal walking route. But the Ramblers' Association accepted it as a good basis for discussion and received it in that spirit.
The Countryside Commission, faced with the unpleasant fact of disagreement between interested parties, itself resorted to delay. Both public and private representations were required before, in October 1972, it prepared its own route, which it circulated for comments early in 1973. It had taken five years to get so far, but the route published was a good one. My fellow-members of the Ramblers' Association, while critical of details, were on the whole delighted. The National Farmers' Union resorted to its usual delaying antics, while sections of the Country Landowners' Association set out to neutralise the commission's work.
Over a year passed with no discernible progress. Inquiries revealed that the nub of the problem lay in what is probably the most beautiful section of the whole of the Wolds Way, a central stretch of nearly a dozen miles between Thixendale and Wintringham. In this area, because of the determined and effective opposition


of landowners, there are relatively few legally secure rights of way, though many are claimed by ramblers. Under pressure from three landowners, a party of commissioners, led by their chairman, Mr. John Cripps, travelled up to the Yorkshire Wolds about a year ago to view alternative routes for the Way along this particularly beautiful central section.
The commission's own original route, much preferred by ramblers, travels both through valleys and along hill slopes, providing a contrasting countryside of tremendous charm. The alternative, put forward by the landowners, keeps to metalled roads and earth tracks on higher ground, some of the roads being busy, unpleasant and dangerous. The higher ground, being a kind of plateau, completely lacks tthe interest and charm of the commission's own route.
Nobody was surprised when soon afterwards the commission reversed its position and opted for the landowner's route. Yet the commission admitted in accepting the landowner's route that this alternative contained more metalled roads and more well-known countryside and country paths than it first suggested. The commissioners arrogated to themselves—strangers to the district—the right and ability to prefer the revised route for its visual qualities, contradicting the view of every person who had walked the two routes. I have walked both, and the first route is far preferable to the plateau route.
I must point out that it is not merely attractive countryside which has been abandoned in favour of the dull plateau, important though this is. The deserted village of Wharram Percy with its poignant half-ruined church, North Grimston with its public house, accommodation and bus route, and the charming village of Settrington, with a village stream running in front of the houses, one of the most attractive villages in this part of Yorkshire, with its shop and bus route—all stand to be lost.
The real walker, as opposed to the armchair planner, would indeed be in difficulties, for in a country where buses and beds for travellers are few and cherished there would be no bus route for about a dozen miles and no overnight accommodation for about 18. What the Countryside Commission now wants to do

would not only gravely impair the quality of the Wolds Way but make the problems of access, food, drink and accommodation extremely and unnecessarily difficult. Local ramblers feel that with the amended central section of the Wolds Way the integrity of the whole of the Way is now in question.
Earlier this year, in May, the commission circulated its revised route for the whole Way to interested parties for comment. In ignoring the considerable stretches where agreement has not been reached and the talent of the farmers for masterly inactivity, the commission hopes to submit this revision to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for designation during the course of this summer. I should add that even after designation opportunities will remain for further alteration and delay.
A word is in order about the landowner at whose request the commissioners made their pilgrimage to Canossa, as a result of which it was able to change its minds about its original route. One landowner owns three adjoining parishes on the Yorkshire Wolds with 12,000 acres and 30 farms. He has objected to all rights of way across his land with the exception of one which forms the southern boundary of his estate. In the peculiarly medieval conditions of parts of the former East Riding, landowners were able to keep all other rights of way off the map, although the status of many of them still remains to be decided. A reporter of The Sunday Times, in the course of writing an article on East Riding footpaths in 1973, concluded that the attitude of one of the landowners—namely, Lord Middleton—was
that there should be a few well-established walks which begin from the premise that there are at present no rights of way in the estate, apart from the one exception quoted above.
That is the man whose part the Countryside Commission has taken.
Following the commission's startling volte-face, the secretary of East Riding area of the Ramblers' Association, Dr. Geoffrey Eastwood, issued a statement. The statement, which was dated November 1974, used strong words which in the circumstances seem entirely appropriate. The key passage reads:
We charge the Commission with weakness and accuse it of failing in its plain duty to


provide facilities where they are badly needed for the enjoyment of the countryside. We assert that in parts of the countryside the power of determined landowners to thwart progress is, as far as access is concerned, virtually as great as it was the last century. The Countryside Commission should be the watchdog of the rights of the public.
Dr. Eastwood then went on to suggest in an adaptation of Lloyd George's words that the commission is little more than a landowners' poodle. Later he said:
It is up now to the Government itself to reform it or to begin again. What we must have is an agency with real power, not merely a weak benevolence which is the obdurate landowners' best friend… When will the Government act?
That is the indictment of the Countryside Commission over the issue of the Wolds Way. I now turn to the question of reform. Under its present leadership the commission appears too often to side with whoever has more powerful weapons and better ammunition. It seeks to avoid controversy and appears to reserve its anger for those who criticise, such as the East Riding Ramblers' Association.
However, it is not entirely the commission's fault. Successive Governments have created the National Parks Commission and its successor, the Countryside Commission, but they have failed to endow either of them with real power. Accordingly, its lack of bark, let alone bite, is not entirely surprising. It is afraid to annoy the Government, who have, against the commission's will, sent it to the Botany Bay of Cheltenham. It is afraid to annoy landowners and it has fallen back on advice, interpretation and research. Those are important functions but they are not its real job. In all fairness to the commission, I approve of Government agencies being moved outwards, but I wonder whether the ideal place has been found.
The present commission is hardly better than no commission. Perhaps that is putting the matter a little too strongly in that I want to preserve the commission, but it must be a strong and independent body. How can a real watchdog be provided?
I put forward four proposals which would go far to protect the countryside and the interests of those who resort to it for recreation and peace. The tentative proposals merit attention. First, the commission, which now has rather colour-

less functions, should be given real power to wield both against Government and against private individuals. Secondly—and I lay equal stress on both points—its power should be wielded specifically and primarily towards the preservation of and access to the countryside. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, in choosing the commission's membership, apart from token membership, due regard should be paid to the interests of countrygoers—principally walkers, pedal cyclists and nature lovers.
Finally, the commission's annual report should be made direct to Parliament rather than to my right hon. Friend. In this way if any of the commission's actions to save the countryside from a motorway, or a mine, or to create a long-distance footpath were unacceptable, they would have to be declared so openly in this House. A decision to countermand the commission would have to be made by a Minister answerable to Parliament—surely the proper body to censure a Minister.
This matter which I have raised tonight does not shake the fate of nations. It is neither sensational nor revolutionary. It concerns the quality of the countryside, the quiet valleys and hills of England and Wales, as well as the wild and lonely uplands. It also concerns the access of ordinary citizens to those areas and their ability to enjoy them. They should no longer be the preserve of the wealthy landowner. Rightly, this is recognised to be a subject of increasing importance in the modern world.
I call on the Minister to declare that the apparent disaster which has struck the Wolds Way—and particularly the approach to Wharran Percy—will be closely re-examined with a view to putting forward a route preferable to those who will use it and more in keeping with the suggestions of the Countryside Commission. Secondly, I hope that the whole of the Wolds Way will speedily be brought to vigorous life.
Finally, and most important, I hope that the rôle of the Countryside Commission will be submitted to searching scrutiny so that it can perform its vital tasks effectively and successfully. I hope that there will be an independent spokesman for the country lover who is able to mediate between various claims and able


to ensure that our national heritage will be shared by us all and wasted by none.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has illustrated the growing concern in the country and the public's impatience at the fact that the Government have not yet announced their decision on the Sandford Report—the Report of the National Park Policies Review Committee—and declared their strategy for leisure in the countryside. We have waited a long time for that answer. I hope that the wait will be worth while. Until the Government announce their decision, it is difficult for the Countryside Commission to co-ordinate its research rôle in the national parks or to take new initiatives.
The Sandford Report amply illustrated that during the last 10 years the demand to use the countryside for leisure has expanded rapidly. Yet, sadly, during that period the commission has worked slowly, and we have seen not one single new national park designated.
The commission has recognised that on many occasions too many people go to too few areas and destroy the very things for which people go to the countryside. There have been a few small experiments to see whether such conflicts can be eliminated, but the commission has done useful work in the marking of footpaths and has been involved in the drawing up of national park plans, which the parks have to prepare by 1st April 1977.
Almost all this work is out of scale with the size of the problem. The Sandford Report suggested that we needed more national parks, particularly in the South of England and areas where there are substantial populations. That report was produced before the oil crisis. Surely the need for more of these facilities closer to the areas where people live is even greater nowadays, but at the moment I understand that the Countryside Commission has no proposals for new national parks.
I turn to the question of footpaths. I stress the fact that the Countryside Commission is putting forward only one or two proposals for paths per year. We

require one or two of these proposals to be put forword each month. I ask the Minister to put pressure on the Countryside Commission to bring forward scores of new designated routes per year rather than to say that no new proposals are to be put forward this year. I hope that we shall hear in the Minister's reply a major announcement by the Government of their strategy in implementing most of the Sandford Report and in giving the Countryside Commission new powers to get on and manage the countryside for the benefit of vast numbers of people who want to enjoy leisure there.

10.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) for raising this matter, as we do not have many opportunities to discuss the work of the Countryside Commission and the related questions of public policy. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett).
I shall first deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North. Since last July, when I was appointed Minister of State with responsibility for sport and recreation, I have spent a great deal of time on these matters. I expect that my White Paper dealing with the future of sport and recreation, and especially leisure in the countryside, to be published within a matter of weeks. It is almost ready.
The Government have concluded their preliminary consideration of the Sandford Report. I hope to announce our views on it before Parliament rises for the recess, or at any rate in the summer. Those will be two important landmarks for country lovers.
Referring to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central, I have tremendous sympathy for the essential points about the importance of access to the countryside and public rights of way. The documents to which I have referred will have a great deal to say on those matters.
The Countryside Commission faces many difficulties as it goes about its duties. Its powers may be inadequate, but it can exercise the powers which it has. The question of the ownership of land was also raised. My hon. Friend


made vigorous criticisms, which we normally associate with him.
Since I have worked with the Countryside Commission, I have come to appreciate that it is composed of dedicated people of undoubted integrity. I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's point that the type of membership should be extended. I have that point in mind. I also have in mind the people with environmental and leisure interests, such as the Ramblers Association and the Youth Hostels Association. Those people should be made members of the Countryside Commission, as should representatives from the national parks and similar organisations. I have made changes so as to give added membership to those interests.
The membership of the Countryside Commission does not consist entirely of people who might be regarded as landlords' poodles. My hon. Friend is out of date. The chairman, Mr. John Cripps, is the son of the late Sir Stafford Cripps. I should not expect any member of the Cripps family to fall into the category of anyone's poodle.
Mr. John Cousins, who is a member, could hardly be described as one of the more docile members of the trade union movement. When I had the opportunity to make an additional appointment, I appointed Miss Joan Lipson, Vice-President of APEX, to ensure that there was a further trade union representative on the commission. Many other members of the commission are equally dedicated to the causes which my hon. Friend has at heart. I hope he accepts that we are moving in the right direction, as I feel that some of his strictures on the people I have mentioned were unfair. All the people involved fight zealously on behalf of the countryside situation.
Work on the long-distance route of Wolds Way falls into three catgories. I am not sure that my hon. Friend understands the present situation. The Countryside Commission must initiate or consider the route. It must hold a long series of discussions. Although the process takes a long time it is better to get it right, as we are dealing with a permanent facility for our people. The com-

mission must then issue its proposals. After that there must be an opportunity for consultation and representation. That is the position we have now reached.
The matter has not yet been determined. Anyone interested should make representations as soon as possible. They must be received by mid-July. I have no doubt that the Ramblers Association and other interests with a point of view on this matter will make representations to the commission and the Government as soon as possible. I hope that my two hon. Friends will also make any views they have known on this issue.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is in a somewhat quasi-judicial capacity in this respect because he cannot involve himself. He finally has to make an adjudication and he does not automatically have to accept the plan which is put up to him. I hope that that will be of some comfort to my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend has to make an adjudication when he has had the opportunity to see the submission of the Countryside Commission, as amended by comments which it will have received, and he must have regard to outside comments.
I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend will weigh very carefully all the comments which have been made here and elsewhere and the representations which are made by the organisations concerned. Such voluntary organisations as the ramblers and the hostelers have to be consulted, as do the landowners and the NFU. Obviously this sometimes leads to a conflict, but I am sure that it is a sensible approach to take a little more time than perhaps some of us would like in order to reach the right answer. For example, do the thousands who now get pleasure from the Pennine Way find their enjoyment any the less because the route took such a long time to bring into operation?
The report of Mr. Brunsden Yapp, who was a former member of the commission, made recommendations about the procedures for long-distance footpaths As a result of his report the procedures are being re-examined to see whether we can speed them up and eliminate some of the delays.
We must not forget what the commission has achieved. Its overall achievements are quite impressive. It has already produced 12 routes covering about 1,500 miles and progress is being made on another five routes covering an additional 600 miles. That is perhaps part of the answer to my hon. Friend. New proposals are being produced this year and five more major routes are under consideration.
I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's views about the membership of the Countryside Commission and we would seek to enlarge it and extend it in the areas I have suggested. One should pay tribute, too, to the commission's proposals for heritage coasts which have met with universal acceptance and acclaim.
Perhaps I could deal with the other examples that my hon. Friend gave. I am grateful to him for giving me advance notice of the points he intended to raise.
In recent years there have been greatly improved arrangements for the administration of our national parks, and each park is run by one authority with a national park officer. Each has to prepare a national park plan. This has greatly increased the resources devoted to national parks and has produced a significant involvement by the commission. For example, more than 250 country parks and picnic sites have been designated, and these are a tremendous boon to our town dwellers. The number speaks well of the Countryside Commission and the local authorities.
The commission has not been backward in defending the interests of the countryside against the proposals of others. For example, there was a fight over the route of the A66 through the Lake District. That issue has been determined in a way which the Countryside Commission did not want, but the commission put up a very vigorous fight for its point of view in that respect, and since that decision had nothing to do with this Government I can say that I have a lot of sympathy with the view the commission took in that matter.
My hon. Friend has already made a number of suggestions for the future. The first was that the commission should be

given real power to be wielded against the Government and private individuals. It is a little difficult to comment specifically on that because the powers for which he was asking were not spelled out by him. I hope that my White Paper will initiate a debate on these very matters. That is one of its main purposes, so that we can get Government policy right. We need to strengthen the commission and to get right what additional powers are needed. The purpose of the White Paper more than anything else is to generate public discussion on that aspect.
Secondly, my hon. Friend says that powers should be wielded towards preservation of and access to the countryside. In a large measure it is true that the accent is more towards preservation than towards access. I think the commission already has such statutory functions. They are,
Conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside, and encouraging the provision and improvement for persons resorting to the countryside of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside and of open air recreation in the countryside.
The powers and obligations my hon. Friend is seeking are there, and we have to ensure that they are fully used.
I have already dealt with the third of my hon. Friend's points, which is that membership of the commission should reflect the interests of countrygoers.
His fourth point was that there should be an annual report direct to Parliament. I do not quite see the point of that. The commission's report now has to be laid before Parliament. It can be debated if hon. Members wish to debate it. I wish that more hon. Members would take the initiative, as my hon. Friends have done tonight, to see that it is debated. We all know the difficulties of parliamentary time, but the more these things are debated the greater help it is to the Government and to keen Ministers such as myself. Remarks such as have been made are sometimes embarrassing, but it is a welcome embarrassment, enabling us to maintain our fights with the Treasury and others, and to wage battle for access to the countryside.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will accept that the question of Wolds


Way is a long and difficult one, but that it is by no means settled. There are opportunities for every point of view to be expressed. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept my assurance, having listened to what has been said. As and when I

can, I shall broaden the membership of the National Parks Commission and of the Countryside Commission.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.